Dr Kevin J. Farrugia explores bridging the gap between forensic science research and operational practices in the UK
The UK forensic science landscape has faced significant instability since the early 2000s. The closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in 2012 marked a major turning point, contributing to the fragmentation of research efforts and the decision was widely criticised
by politicians, academics, practitioners and the legal community.
This, combined with a chronic lack of funding in forensic science, has further delayed progress in addressing key research areas. Driven in part by the “CSI effect”, there has also been an exponential increase in university forensic science courses and a surge in research publications, covering topics from fingermark detection to digital forensics and post-mortem interval estimation. However, this research must remain applicable, safe and capable of being effectively translated into practice.
The consequences of the FSS closure, together with the limited funding for forensic science research, remain a point of discussion to this day. History now appears to be repeating itself as the world-renowned Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science (LRCFS) at the University of Dundee is earmarked to close in 2026.
Founded in 2016, the LRCFS had a bold remit to “disrupt positively the current forensic science ecosystem” to step away from “conventional siloed ways of thinking” to “embrace new opportunities from across the broad academic research and industry landscape and work with practitioners from the crime scene to the court room”. (1) This remit reflects what researchers, practitioners and the legal community have been advocating for, and the LRCFS closure risks halting and reversing a decade of ground-breaking and collaborative work.
Bridging the gap between forensic science research and practice in the UK
The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences (CSFS), the professional body for forensic science in the UK, plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between academic research and operational practices through educational quality standards and continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities.
The UK has provided numerous breakthroughs in forensic research, as well as innovative technology; however, the adoption of these advances in operational practice takes many years due to pressures faced by forensic laboratories, which include high workloads, time constraints, limited funding, and increasing demands for validation and quality assurance.
To overcome these challenges, academia, operational scientists, and industry should collaborate to shape the research agenda, ensure that the research is fit for purpose, and that research carried out under controlled conditions is successfully translated into operational casework. There are encouraging signs of this taking place through the work of the CSFS, the Forensic Capability Network (FCN) and regional collaborations such as the East Midlands Forensic Network (EMFN); however, more is required at the national level.
Furthermore, crime scene facilities and forensic laboratories housed at various universities have led to collaborative research centres to work more closely with police forces and operational forensic laboratories.
Using guidelines for forensic science research
The use of guidelines for research into particular areas is also strongly recommended to allow for comparisons between studies and to ensure the minimum standards for robust and rigorous research are met. Such examples include guidelines and methodologies for research into fingermark detection techniques as recommended by the UK Home Office and the International Fingerprint Research Group.
In the UK, the Forensic Science Regulator has also played a key role in narrowing the research-practice gap by developing mandatory codes of practice and quality frameworks. These evidence-based standards are essential for ensuring consistency and to safeguard the admissibility of forensic evidence in court. That said, it is equally important that standards do not become rigid barriers that hinder progress. Standards should serve as enablers, encouraging innovation and not stifling it. Globally, similar efforts for developing standards are underway.
After the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2009) and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST, 2016) in the United States raised concerns about the reliability of several forensic disciplines, efforts intensified to establish standards through the Department of Justice, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC).
Further global standards specific to forensic science are welcomed. Over the past seven years, an international technical committee (TC272) has developed the international standard ISO 21043 for forensic sciences, billed as the “first international standard for forensic science, based on a worldwide consensus, and a unique opportunity to move forensic science forward”. (2)
Addressing key research areas in forensic science
As a forensic researcher and Editor-in-Chief of Science & Justice, the official journal of The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, I believe we are at a defining moment. We should encourage politicians, researchers, institutions, practitioners, and industry alike to come together to address key research areas in forensic science, to engage in rigorous research defined by standards, and to advance forensic science for the benefit of the entire criminal justice system and society. Multi-disciplinary research should be encouraged, international partnerships developed, and open-access publishing models expanded to allow for greater dissemination of best practices.
