Crime Scene Investigation: Fact or Fiction

Crime shows sell. It’s the thing that has been keeping bread on the table for people like Dick Wolf (producer of Law and Order) and Jerry Bruckheimer (producer of CSI). They make science accessible to the public. They incorporate kernels of truth, hidden within the finesse of Hollywood. The fancy clothes, the perfect makeup and of course the magic database that knows all. Take this quote from CSI Las Vegas:

Gil Grissom: I just got a page from James Watson.
Nick Stokes: And I got one from Francis Crick. What's going on, Greg?
Greg Sanders: Well, as you both know, Watson and Crick are the granddaddies of DNA. Without their discoveries, I'd have nothing to do all day.
Nick Stokes: What have you been doing all day?

Being a scientist this banter is very entertaining. It was all in knowing Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA. Does the non-scientist viewer glean this information for this banter that will take less than a minute of screen time? Probably not. While reading a report done by the National Science Teachers Association, this topic of ignoring practical and careful science was discussed. Since shows like CSI and Law and Order can out, there are significant increases in students pursuing degrees in criminal justice, criminology and forensic science. The central question that comes from this fact is “Do we really want all this falsely assigned attention?” In a crime lab on CSI, the scientist receives a sample and within the work shift shown in the show, the unknown sample has been identified as a nylon fiber rug made in the 1970’s. In reality, trace evidence may take weeks to identify. Also the DNA evidence is collected, extraction, amplified and identified within hours, where in reality it could take 5-10 days. The disparity between Hollywood and reality lies in the funding. Currently many crime labs struggle with increasing case loads. In a report put out by the National Research Council, it states the primary funding is focused on advancement in DNA technology. The lack of equal funding leaves many loose ends. Also in the report, it discusses the necessity for assessing the validity of certain assay and standardizing practices used in crime labs nationwide. Another thing was laying down guidelines for education of forensic scientists. One of the biggest concerns in the proper collection of data would be that all scientist use valid methods and proper technique when analyzing data. Personally I know I do not watch CSI for the scientific merit hat it exudes, but for the vanity. Hopefully one thing that can come from the inaccuracy of the science presented is a hope for ethical and better regulation of forensic science in the future.

In this blog post, I tried to hook the reader by choosing a popular television show. I tried to avoid using jargon or delving to deep into science of forensic. In this post I was trying to express the importance of understanding proper and practical science. The article I found was focused on the uses of forensic sciences in education. I think as scientists this idea of accessible science through popular culture can be helpful in showing the ethics and applications of science.