John Buckleton DSc, Duncan Taylor PhD, Paul Stafford Allen BSc, James Curran PhD, Tim Kalafut PhD
{"title":"在活动水平命题下报告生物学发现的价值:对已发表建议的讨论。","authors":"John Buckleton DSc, Duncan Taylor PhD, Paul Stafford Allen BSc, James Curran PhD, Tim Kalafut PhD","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.70112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evaluation of DNA given activity propositions (EGALP) is a widely discussed topic at this time, particularly in the United States. There is concern about opinions given in testimony that are not properly founded. Guidance on evaluative reporting given alleged activities can be found in published papers, official documents, and specialized textbooks. In this work, we aim to align and compare recommendations on evaluative reporting of DNA results. Some of these recommendations are explicitly stated while others are woven into the text. All documents pertain to evaluative reporting; they agree on the use of likelihood ratios and the need to avoid the transposed conditional. There is some disagreement such as whether a quantitative or qualitative <i>LR</i> should be reported. However, the majority situation is that one topic is covered explicitly by one document but only implicitly covered or not mentioned in the others. We identify 19 consensus recommendations and highlight five gaps or areas of disagreement for which we offer suggestions. It is our hope that this will encourage conversations that will lead to a more uniform set of guidelines, perhaps during a periodic updating of existing documents.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"70 5","pages":"1670-1686"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting the value of biological findings given activity level propositions: A discussion of published recommendations\",\"authors\":\"John Buckleton DSc, Duncan Taylor PhD, Paul Stafford Allen BSc, James Curran PhD, Tim Kalafut PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1556-4029.70112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Evaluation of DNA given activity propositions (EGALP) is a widely discussed topic at this time, particularly in the United States. There is concern about opinions given in testimony that are not properly founded. Guidance on evaluative reporting given alleged activities can be found in published papers, official documents, and specialized textbooks. In this work, we aim to align and compare recommendations on evaluative reporting of DNA results. Some of these recommendations are explicitly stated while others are woven into the text. All documents pertain to evaluative reporting; they agree on the use of likelihood ratios and the need to avoid the transposed conditional. There is some disagreement such as whether a quantitative or qualitative <i>LR</i> should be reported. However, the majority situation is that one topic is covered explicitly by one document but only implicitly covered or not mentioned in the others. We identify 19 consensus recommendations and highlight five gaps or areas of disagreement for which we offer suggestions. It is our hope that this will encourage conversations that will lead to a more uniform set of guidelines, perhaps during a periodic updating of existing documents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"volume\":\"70 5\",\"pages\":\"1670-1686\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.70112\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.70112","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reporting the value of biological findings given activity level propositions: A discussion of published recommendations
Evaluation of DNA given activity propositions (EGALP) is a widely discussed topic at this time, particularly in the United States. There is concern about opinions given in testimony that are not properly founded. Guidance on evaluative reporting given alleged activities can be found in published papers, official documents, and specialized textbooks. In this work, we aim to align and compare recommendations on evaluative reporting of DNA results. Some of these recommendations are explicitly stated while others are woven into the text. All documents pertain to evaluative reporting; they agree on the use of likelihood ratios and the need to avoid the transposed conditional. There is some disagreement such as whether a quantitative or qualitative LR should be reported. However, the majority situation is that one topic is covered explicitly by one document but only implicitly covered or not mentioned in the others. We identify 19 consensus recommendations and highlight five gaps or areas of disagreement for which we offer suggestions. It is our hope that this will encourage conversations that will lead to a more uniform set of guidelines, perhaps during a periodic updating of existing documents.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.