Facing the future: Technology and “advocacy” at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences

Most scientific organizations assiduously avoid using the term “advocacy” to describe their activities in order to avoid being perceived as biased or partisan. This is understandable given the general connotation of the word. However, “advocacy” has a potentially broad range of meanings. In its most extreme form, it could involve organizations (or their individual members) endorsing controversial positions, particular political parties, or even specific candidates.

With regard to this endeavor as it relates to forensic science organizations in general, however, it generally has focused on an educative process for policymakers (e.g., the judiciary, legislatures, executive/administrative/regulatory agencies) and the public (e.g., interested individual citizens, the news media). The goal of this process has been to keep these entities and individuals apprised of existing scientific principles, new research and developments, and practical matters related to the practice of forensic science. Armed with this information, these entities can make well-informed decisions about regulations, legislation, and specific cases (among other things) involving various aspects of forensic science. Consequently, AAFS's process of education of policymakers and the public can accurately be described as “advocacy.” However, in this process, we are not advocating for a specific outcome or outcomes, but rather for sound processes, both from an ethical and scientific standpoint. In some cases, we may advocate for continued or additional resources to support the continuation, development, and/or implementation of such sound processes.

Lastly, and incredibly importantly, our society is seeing exponential, revolutionary advances in technology. Some of these are impacting and will impact almost every vocation, as well as society as a whole (e.g., artificial intelligence), while others may have more targeted effects (e.g., forensic genealogy, risk assessment algorithms, use of fMRI in forensic psychiatry). In part because of the magnitude of the ramifications of these technologies' impact on forensic science, I strongly believe AAFS has an obligation to advise policymakers about the appropriate implementation and use of these technologies, in both legal and other forensic science-related settings. Additionally, because these technological advances likely will tremendously affect the day-to-day practice of almost all subspecialties of forensic science, it would be wise for AAFS (and its members) to monitor closely the development and implementation of these innovations. This will help the Academy and its members remain professionally competent and “up-to-date” with current practice standards.

For the aforementioned reasons, AAFS should embrace a relatively broad educational mission and vision, one that includes not only its members but also governmental entities and the public. Obviously, this “advocacy” should only involve select matters about which AAFS and its members have collective and individual expertise and, perhaps, unique perspectives. In addition, our input must be guided by the existing scientific literature, the Academy's aggregated knowledge and experience, and, in some situations, pragmatic workforce concerns. In this process, we must be candid in acknowledging the limits both in our expertise and in the scientific literature. But perhaps most crucially, the Academy must ensure that during this process, which may at times include vigorous, healthy debate, our membership does not become permanently fractured. I believe we can accomplish this goal by focusing on the goal of advancing understanding of various subspecialties of forensic science and practice-related issues rather than endorsing specific ideological viewpoints.

The AAFS is the pre-eminent forensic science organization in the United States, and probably the world. Although other forensic science professional organizations also operate at the intersection of science/medicine and the law, AAFS is unique in that it represents practitioners from across the forensic science community, and therefore has a broad range of expertise. Additionally, its and its members' views are informed (and sometimes beneficially tempered by) interactions with members of other sections, which helps it (and us) see the forensic science landscape more fully.

AAFS has over 6000 members, who hail from every state in the United States, a host of other countries, and a wide variety of areas of expertise. AAFS consists of 12 sections that collectively represent practitioners from across the forensic science community. Plainly, AAFS has, through its members and their affiliations, an incredible wealth of knowledge of the forensic sciences and the interplay of different forensic science subspecialties.

Policymakers from every branch of the federal and state governments are grappling with how to address issues related to forensic science, particularly regulatory and quasi-regulatory standards, as well as the implementation of new forensic science technologies that are coming online now or in the near future. Given the stakes, it is not surprising that they are actively seeking organized forensic science's input on multiple aspects of these concerns.

Over the past 100 years, many authors have described a dystopian future based on technology's negative impact on society. Huxley, Orwell, Asimov, and others have predicted grim futures for our species. Hollywood, too, has offered similar visions for the next century of humankind, with innumerable films about technology's potentially negative impact on the world as we know it, Bladerunner, Gattaca, and Ex Machina to name a few. Thankfully, these futures have not yet (at least fully) come to pass.

In the past ten years, a new author has started to raise alarm bells regarding the near-term, very troubling potential impact of technology on various aspects of our lives. Yuval Harari PhD, an Oxford-education Professor of History at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has written extensively about this topic, in books such as Homo Deus (2017) [4], 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (2018) [5], and Nexus (2024) [6] and in magazine articles, including Why Technology Favors Tyranny (2018) [7]. Harari also has been a regular on the talk show circuit (e.g., Real Time with Bill Maher) and is, strangely, a Silicon Valley darling, despite the somewhat dark future he paints and the degree to which he, mostly tacitly, holds technology companies accountable for this potential future.

In his work and during his appearances, Harari makes the case that the exponential speed at which new technologies are being developed, refined, and deployed may render our society almost unrecognizable in the near future. He also argues that AI and biotechnologies may erode the practical advantages of western democracies (i.e., information decentralization) and ultimately advantage authoritarian regimes. Specifically, Harari examines the effects on our society of (among other things): artificial intelligence (AI) and automation; the increasing use and importance of algorithms; these algorithms being able to predict our desires and subsequent behaviors with increasing accuracy; the growing importance of artificial vs. human intelligence; and the “myth of free will” (based on neuroimaging studies, among other things) [3].

Regardless of whether or when we ultimately arrive at Huxley's, Orwell's, Asimov's, and/or Harari's dystopian future, in the near term, both current and anticipated technological advances will impact remarkably every aspect of our lives and almost all professions, including the forensic sciences. AAFS, among other organizations, will be crucial in initially vetting, testing, and, if appropriate, utilizing these new technologies as they become available. As mentioned previously, policymakers and the public will need organized forensic science's input on multiple aspects of these advances, for the betterment of society.

The 2025 AAFS Annual Scientific Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, will examine the responsible, ethical, and just use of existing and new technologies in the forensic sciences. The meeting will be titled “Technology: A Tool for Transformation or Tyranny?” Some readers (and attendees) may find this title hyperbolic and/or alarmist, but as mentioned previously, technological advances are occurring at a remarkable, even exponential, pace and will be present in almost every field of forensic science in the near future. These tools have extraordinary promise but also great potential peril. In addition to the aforementioned technologies, I'm sure readers can think of others that soon likely will impact each of their section's members in their professional practices.

In my opinion, the Academy's proactively (to the extent possible) considering addressing these issues will be incredibly important for both societal/altruistic reasons and professional relevance. The Academy is uniquely poised to address these challenges, given its diverse membership and varied sections, that can each provide a different perspective and can collaborate to this end.

I realize that the Academy will continue to grapple with and address these matters for many years past the end of my presidential term and that our position(s) will continue to evolve. My goal for my term is merely to “begin the conversation” around these topics on an Academy-wide basis, and hope for future leadership and membership to address these issues in as proactive a manner as we can. Based on my experiences with upcoming AAFS leaders and members generally, I am quite certain that we are in good hands.