ISO-accreditation-is that all there is for forensic science?

In a recent article we traced the history of quality management (QM) from the guilds in the 10(th)and 11(th)centuries and related it to the evolution of QM in forensic science with a particular focus on accreditation. The number of accredited forensic science laboratories has increased enormously, worldwide since forensic science accreditation programmes became available in the 1980s. The standard of choice for the forensic science community became ISO17025 and ISO17020. In this paper, the current standing of QM in forensic science is considered. What has it brought to the forensic community and is the most frequently used standard, ISO17025, the most appropriate one? The notion of 'quality' in the forensic community has almost become synonymous with 'accreditation based on the ISO standards'. This notion is too limited. The publication of the NAS-report in 2009 was very critical of forensic science and its practitioners from a range of perspectives. From a QM perspective a key focus was laboratory accreditation and personal certification. Other publications (e.g. by the UK Forensic Regulator) gave similar opinions. However, it is now clear that the forensic community should broaden its view beyond ISO-accreditation in order to improve its functioning and overall QM performance.

Automated summary

This article discusses the current state of QM in forensic science and suggests that the forensic community should go beyond ISO accreditation to improve its functioning and overall QM performance.