Forensic Science Forensic science has changed the way crimes are invested and the evidence that is used to convict criminals, but how reliable is it? Many think that forensic science is unlimited, quickly dealt with, and never wrong, but that is not the case. The way that forensic science is portrayed in the media is irresponsible. Forensic crime labs are underfunded and are staffed with not the most qualified personal or just understaffed. Forensic science also needs more universal standards and actual scientific backing to truly be considered a science. The biggest problem with forensic science is that many of its aspects are not actually based on scientific proof. As mentioned before techniques such as blood splatter pattern analysis, ballistics, fingerprinting, bite mark identification, and fiber comparison are simply open to interpretation. Fingerprinting for example does not have a universal standard on how points on a fingerprint should be matched. Some experts look at nine points to make a match and some look at twelve. This brings about skewed results. Even the FBI had to admit that they wrongly accused an Oregon lawyer of the Madrid bombings because of faulty fingerprint work. The Chicago Tribune investigated forensic dentistry and found that, “Forensic dentists, who link suspects to bite marks left on crime victims, continue to testify despite having no accepted way to measure their rate of error or the benefit of peer review” (McRoberts, Mills, Possley). DNA testing has overturned many rulings based off faulty aspects of forensics. Work Cited Toobin, Jeffrey. “The CSI Effect: The truth about forensic science.” The New Yorker 07 May. 2007. 24 Sept. 2008 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_toobin.