I fully recognize that to do classic-style research in many forensic fields can be difficult.  Tox and DNA seem to be the areas that are most amenable to research and seem to be the forensic disciplines that I think most folks would call “scientific.”   Even so, there are some issues, such as “what is the lethal dose of Fentanyl?” where there is not a good handle on the answer because, obviously, we simply cannot line up a whole bunch of folks in a double-blind controlled study and give them various doses of Fentanyl and see who survives and who doesn’t. 

   Instead of an experimental approach, many forensic studies are based on the observational approach—for example, in the forensic environment I am most familiar with, the morgue, when an approved ethical study was conducted, the researcher would first review appropriate cases that had presented to the morgue in the past, and then would often also have to wait for additional cases to come in that met the study criteria—not exactly the classical experimental approach, but, rather, a retrospective approach.  Not even close to being a controlled double-blind randomized sample approach.

   And this issue has certainly affected forensic dentistry studies as well—particularly bitemark analysis.  Each true bitemark incident seems to be violent and unique, so it is probably not possible to replicate the real-world conditions in a lab.  Several studies have been done using models of a subject’s teeth placed into some sort of mechanical biting contraption, biting into a proxy substrate—sometimes something like wet leather, or anesthetized pigs, or even perhaps the arm of some unfortunate human volunteers (it is not easy to get a study that involves biting human subjects through IRB, but it has been done at least once). 

   It is questionable how accurately these proxy substrates reflect the way actual human tissue reacts in a real biting incident--even when the injuries are inflicted on the humans. For instance, we don’t even know how much force to use with our mechanical biters. 

   In our odontology subdisciplines we don’t have a handle on what our error rates are…for example, with bitemarks, we know of the exoneration cases tallied by the Innocence Project, but are there other cases of wrongful convictions based on bitemark analyses out there we don’t know about? Maybe. Probably. In how many cases do we know for a fact that the bitemark analysis was truly correct? Virtually none—only a very slim percentage where a real bite was actually witnessed.  And, of course, a conviction does not equate to a correct bitemark analysis, by any means, so we can't use the number of convictions as our benchmark.

   But the big issue is—what is our value for the denominator in the most naïve calculation of error rate:

 (Errors/Cases) x 100

   Well, we have no idea—forensic dentists are notoriously reticent about sharing information about how many cases they are doing, and they—we—certainly do not willingly publicize their errors.

   In age estimation via dental development in living human subjects for legal purposes (ie for immigration issues), how many times do we get the age estimate correct?  Make that simpler to evaluate—ask: how many times do we get the ultimate binary question—“is this subject older than 18 years, or younger?”—correct?  We have no idea.  The subject either does not know his/her true age, or will not tell—in any case, we simply don’t know the subject’s true age, so we don’t know if we got the estimate right or not, or how close the estimate was to the truth (except in one known case where true age was able to be determined later, and the odontologist was wrong.)   

   But the point I’m trying to make is: even if the research is hard to do, that doesn't mean we don’t have to do it.  I’m very familiar with the arguments that go “Well, I’m an expert, and I know what I’m doing, my discipline is as much an art as a science, I don't have to listen to criticism from statisticians or from lawyers, of all people, who aren't trained in my field…I don't need any research...I'm not biased...” ad nauseum.  I’ve frequently made those very arguments in the past. 

   But, if it is important to many of us to be seen as real scientists, then we have to act like real scientists.  Why resist and complain to high heaven about calls for more science and research in our discipline?  Listen to criticisms—test them, try to refute them.  Revise hypotheses.  Test again.  Revise hypotheses again. Repeat. Science is not really about maintaining the status quo, but about moving forward.

   People ask me all the time:  why are you collecting all these academic degrees?  You’ve been to dental school, to law school, and now you’re in graduate school?  Isn’t this overkill? ...or showing off?  ...or something?  You're OLD! My reason is that forensic dentistry is extremely a niche field—it is at the intersection of dentistry, law, and science, and it is the neglected red-headed stepchild of them all. 

   Frankly, if you don't know the history of organized forensic dentistry in the U.S., then you wouldn't know that this was a "good old boys" club at first, and these manly men enjoyed getting together to go hunting and drinking (I hope in that order!) as much as they enjoyed being superstars who could put away the bad guys using their dental training.  There wasn't much science or research involved for many of the early years. They didn't need it....because they knew what they were doing!

    In any case, if I intend to make a significant contribution, then I felt I, in contrast, had to have training in all the fields.  We have too many dentists who think they know science, dentists who think they know law, lawyers who think they know dentistry, and scientists who think they know everything.  But hardly anyone has formal training in all the pertinent fields.  And you know what?  I’ve found that actually being trained in a field helps greatly when one wants to make that field better.