Support for Forensic Science Research

Improving the Scientific Role of the

National Institute of Justice 1st Edition
And Medicine Engineering National
Academies Of Sciences
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/support-for-forensic-science-research-improving-the-s
cientific-role-of-the-national-institute-of-justice-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-n
ational-academies-of-sciences/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Foundational Cybersecurity Research Improving Science

Engineering and Institutions 1st Edition And Medicine
Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/foundational-cybersecurity-
research-improving-science-engineering-and-institutions-1st-
edition-and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

The Role of Science Technology Innovation and

Partnerships in the Future of USAID 1st Edition And
Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-role-of-science-technology-
innovation-and-partnerships-in-the-future-of-usaid-1st-edition-
and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

The Value of Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences to

National Priorities A Report for the National Science
Foundation 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering
National Academies Of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-value-of-social-behavioral-and-
economic-sciences-to-national-priorities-a-report-for-the-
national-science-foundation-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-
national-academies-of-sciences/

Improving the American Community Survey: Proceedings of

a Workshop 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering
National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/improving-the-american-community-
survey-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
Improving Data Collection and Measurement of Complex
Farms 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering National
Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/improving-data-collection-and-
measurement-of-complex-farms-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology

Initiative 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering
National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/triennial-review-of-the-national-
nanotechnology-initiative-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-
national-academies-of-sciences/

Personnel Selection in the Pattern Evidence Domain of

Forensic Science Proceedings of a Workshop 1st Edition
And Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/personnel-selection-in-the-pattern-
evidence-domain-of-forensic-science-proceedings-of-a-
workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-
of-sciences/

A New Vision for Center Based Engineering Research 1st

Edition And Medicine Engineering National Academies Of
Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-new-vision-for-center-based-
engineering-research-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-
national-academies-of-sciences/

Opportunities for Organ Donor Intervention Research

Saving Lives by Improving the Quality and Quantity of
Organs for Transplantation 1st Edition And Medicine
Engineering National Academies Of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/opportunities-for-organ-donor-
intervention-research-saving-lives-by-improving-the-quality-and-
quantity-of-organs-for-transplantation-1st-edition-and-medicine-
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street,
N.W. Washington, DC 20001

This study was supported by Contract No. 2014-IJ-CX-0113 from the

U.S. Department of Justice/National Institute of Justice. Any
opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in
this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided
support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-37645-7

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-37645-9
Epub ISBN: 0-309-37648-3
DOI: 10.17226/21772

Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the
National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360,
Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313;
http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights

reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine. (2015). Support for Forensic Science Research:
Improving the Scientific Role of the National Institute of Justice.
Committee on Strengthening Forensic Science at the National
Institute of Justice. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by
an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private,
nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to
science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is
president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964

under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected
by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C.
D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of

Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health
issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished
contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other
activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy
decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research,
recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and
medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
 COMMITTEE ON STRENGTHENING
FORENSIC SCIENCE AT THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

ALAN I. LESHNER (National Academy of Medicine) (Chair), American

Association for the Advancement of Science (ret.)
JANE E. BUIKSTRA (National Academy of Sciences), Center for
Bioarchaeological Research, School of Human Evolution and
Social Change, Arizona State University
TODD R. CLEAR, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University
J. JEROME HOLTON, Tauri Group, Alexandria, VA
DANIEL S. ISENSCHMID, National Medical Services Labs, Willow
Grove, PA
JOSEPH F. PETROSINO, Alkek Center for Metagenomics and
Microbiome Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
ALEX R. PIQUERO, Program in Criminology, School of Economic,
Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas
CASSIA SPOHN, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona
State University
DAWNIE WOLFE STEADMAN, Forensic Anthropology Center and
Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
HAL STERN, Donald Bren School of Information and Computer
Sciences, University of California, Irvine
JARRAD WAGNER, School of Forensic Sciences, Oklahoma State
University
KELLY A. WALSH, Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, Washington,
DC

DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Study Director

JULIE ANNE SCHUCK, Associate Program Officer
EMILY BACKES, Research Associate
LETICIA GARCILAZO GREEN, Program Assistant
KATHI GRASSO, Director, Committee on Law and Justice (from July
2015)
MALAY MAJMUNDAR, Associate Director, Committee on Law and
Justice
 COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE

JEREMY TRAVIS (Chair) John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New

York
RUTH D. PETERSON (Vice Chair), Department of Sociology, Ohio
State University
CARL C. BELL, Department of Psychiatry in the School of Medicine
and the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at
Chicago, St. Bernard’s Hospital’s Inpatient Psychiatric Unit,
Chicago, Jackson Park Hospital’s Family Practice Clinic, Chicago
JOHN J. DONOHUE, III, Stanford Law School, Stanford University
MINDY FULLILOVE, New York State Psychiatric Institute and
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University
MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, Marron Institute of Urban Management, New
York University
GARY LAFREE, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
University of Maryland, College Park
JANET L. LAURITSEN, Department of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, University of Missouri, St. Louis
GLENN LOURY, Department of Economics, Brown University
JAMES P. LYNCH, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
University of Maryland, College Park
CHARLES F. MANSKI, Department of Economics, Northwestern
University
DANIEL S. NAGIN, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University
ANNE MORRISON PIEHL, Department of Economics and Program in
Criminal Justice, Rutgers University
DANIEL B. PRIETO, Cybersecurity and Technology, U.S. Department
of Defense
SUSAN B. SORENSON, School of Social Policy & Practice, University
of Pennsylvania
DAVID WEISBURD, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George
Mason University
CATHY SPATZ WIDOM, Psychology Department, John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, City University of New York
PAUL K. WORMELI, Integrated Justice Information Systems,
Ashburn, VA

Staff
KATHI GRASSO, Director (from July 2015)
MALAY MAJMUNDAR, Associate Director
 Preface

The ability to analyze and interpret criminal justice evidence

accurately is central to the effective functioning and credibility of
every democratic country’s justice system, and there is a constant
need to keep improving both the accuracy and reliability of forensic
analytic techniques, known as forensic science. The best way to
meet that need is through bringing the full power of scientific
research to bear on forensic science questions and methods. Within
the federal government, a variety of agencies both conduct and
support research on or related to forensic science, but there is little
strategic coordination or leadership among them. The consequences
include unmet needs, even in the face of at times unnecessary
redundancies, and missed opportunities. This is a persistent
problem, mentioned by two earlier National Research Council reports
and by virtually every official who interacted with this committee.
Although this issue is outside the purview of this committee’s work,
we believe it urgently needs to be addressed.
This report is the third time in the past 6 years that the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have been asked
to examine, directly or indirectly, the quality of and ways to
strengthen federal leadership of forensic science research. The first
two reports that discussed forensic science research were
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
and Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Because the
three reports have different foci, their sets of recommendations
differ in their details, but all three share some conclusions and
recommendations. Importantly, they all agree that the National
Institute of Justice should be providing greater leadership for this
scientific domain but that it cannot do so unless (1) it also has full
freedom to set its research agenda and (2) its agenda accurately
reflects the gaps in scientific knowledge as perceived by the
researchers themselves, as well as the major problems encountered
by the forensic science practice community. This report recommends
specific steps that should be taken to achieve these goals. Moreover,
the National Institute of Justice must have both financial and human
resources that are adequate to implement the tasks with which it
has been charged. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the
previous reports have been only partially implemented. We hope
that the recommendations in this report will be followed more
closely.
I wish to express my deep appreciation to the members of the
committee for their diligent and dedicated contributions to this study
and to the preparation of this report within an expedited time frame.
The diverse expertise and experience offered by the members of the
committee were indispensable to the formulation of the conclusions
and recommendations. I also wish to thank, on behalf of the entire
committee, the Academies staff whose expertise and skill were
absolutely essential to our meeting the charge.

Alan Leshner, Chair

Committee on Strengthening
Forensic Science at the
National Institute of Justice
 Acknowledgments

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with
procedures approved by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine’s Report Review Committee. The purpose
of this independent review is to provide candid and critical
comments that will assist the institution in making its published
report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets
institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness
to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript
remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative
process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review
of this report: Ann W. Burgess (National Academy of Medicine),
School of Nursing, Boston College; Alicia L. Carriquiry, Department of
Statistics, Iowa State University; Delores M. Etter (National Academy
of Engineering), Engineering Education and Darwin Deason Institute
for Cyber Security, Southern Methodist University; Stephen Fienberg
(National Academy of Sciences), Department of Statistics, Carnegie
Mellon University; Janet L. Lauritsen, Department of Criminology and
Criminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis; Charles F. Manski
(National Academy of Sciences), Department of Economics,
Northwestern University; Peter J. Neufeld, Innocence Project,
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, NY; Eric C. Person,
College of Science and Mathematics, Department of Chemistry,
University of California, Fresno; Tal Simmons, Department of
Forensic Science, Virginia Commonwealth University; and George
Tita, Criminology, Law and Society, University of California, Irvine.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many
constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to
endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the
final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report
was overseen by the monitor, Ron Brookmeyer (National Academy of
Medicine), Department of Biostatistics, University of California, Los
Angeles, and coordinator, John Rolph, Department of Statistics
(emeritus), University of Southern California. Appointed by the
Academies, they were responsible for making certain that an
independent examination of this report was carried out in
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review
comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final
content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee
and the institution.
The committee is grateful to the staff of the National Institute of
Justice for their active participation throughout the study. The
committee also applauds the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine’s staff members—Emily Backes, Leticia
Garcilazo Green, Malay Majmundar, Julie Schuck, and Daniel Talmage
—for their dedication to the study and for their great contributions to
the preparation of this report. And finally, we thank the executive
office reports staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education, especially Robert Katt (consultant editor), who
provided valuable help with editing the report, and Kirsten Sampson
Snyder, who managed the report review process. Without the
Academies’ guidance and wise counsel, the committee’s job would
have been even more difficult, if not impossible.
 Contents

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND BOXES

ACRONYMS

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION
Charge to Committee
Call to Strengthen Forensic Science Research
The NIJ Role
Study Methods
Organization of the Report

2 FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

Spectrum of Forensic Science Disciplines
Forensic Science Practice
Forensic Science Research
National Institute of Justice
National Science Foundation
National Institute of Standards and Technology
FBI Laboratory
Defense Forensic Science Center
 Conclusion

3 RESEARCH OPERATIONS OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

JUSTICE
NIJ’s Forensic Science Research Program
Identifying Forensic Science Needs
Communicating Research Priorities
Solicitations
Peer Review
NIJ’s Research Portfolio
Building the Infrastructure for the Field
Supporting Researchers: Dissemination and Education
Knowledge Transfer to the Criminal Justice Community
Resources
Budget for Forensic Science Research
Staffing
Conclusion

4 FORENSIC SCIENCE RESEARCH AT NIJ: A BLUEPRINT FOR

THE FUTURE
Support for NIJ by Policy Makers
Developing a Strategic Plan
Building a Research Infrastructure
Funding Stability
Improving Communication
Evaluating Impact
Conclusion

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES
A Speakers
B Previous Report Recommendations
C Committee Questions to NIJ
D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
 Figures, Tables, and Boxes

FIGURES
1-1 National Institute of Justice organization chart as of March 2008
1-2 National Institute of Justice organization chart as of May 2015

3-1 Distribution of research awards by discipline, fiscal 2004-2008

and 2009-2013
3-2 Funding for NIJ applicable to forensic science, fiscal 2009-2014,
in millions of dollars
3-3 NIJ forensic science R&D funding by source, fiscal 2009-2014, in
millions of dollars

TABLES
2-1 Percentage of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories with
Resources Dedicated to Research, by Type of Jurisdiction and
Staff Size, 2002 and 2009

3-1 NIJ Forensic Science Expenditures by Funding Sources, 2009-

2014
3-2 NIJ Allocation of Funds, Fiscal 2013 (total funding of $211
million)
 BOXES
S-1 Statement of Task

2-1 Forensic Science Disciplines

2-2 Forensic Services Backlogs and the Need for Research
2-3 Organization of Scientific Area Committees
2-4 National Commission on Forensic Science

3-1 Mission and R&D Goals of NIJ’s Office of Investigative and

Forensic Sciences

4-1 Elements of a Research and Development Strategic Plan

4-2 Examples of Output and Outcome Measures
 Acronyms

OIFS Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences

OJP Office of Justice Programs
ORE Office of Research and Evaluation
OSAC Organization of Scientific Area Committees
OST Office of Science and Technology

R&D research and development

RDT&E research, development, testing, and evaluation

SRP Scientific Review Panel

TWG Technology Working Group

 Summary

Reliable and valid forensic science analytic techniques are critical to

a credible, fair, and evidence-based criminal justice system. There is
widespread agreement that the scientific foundation of some
currently available forensic science methods needs strengthening
and that additional, more efficient techniques are urgently needed.
These needs can only be met through sustained research programs
explicitly designed to ensure and improve the reliability and validity
of current methods and to foster the development and use of new
and better techniques. This task is challenging, due to the broad
nature of the field. Issues in forensic science range from crime scene
investigations to analysis of a variety of types of evidence. Moreover,
forensic science practice is informed by many different disciplines,
including biology, chemistry, statistics, and others. Given the
challenges facing forensic science laboratories in terms of resources,
caseloads, and variations in configuration among state and local
jurisdictions, there is an urgent need for leadership at the national
level to frame and sustain an extensive program of high-quality,
strategically focused forensic science research designed to improve
the forensic tools available to the criminal justice system.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) is recognized as the department’s research arm for
issues of crime and justice. This agency supports a number of
research and development programs aimed at advancing knowledge
on crime, crime control, and the administration of justice and
improving practices within the criminal justice system. NIJ asked the
National Research Council to appoint a committee to examine its
recent efforts to strengthen its role as a science agency and to
advance forensic science research. The committee was also asked to
recommend steps that would improve its research program (see the
committee’s Statement of Task in Box S-1).
The committee was asked to review progress made by NIJ since
the release of two prior National Research Council reports: the 2009
report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
Forward, and the 2010 report, Strengthening the National Institute
of Justice. The first report raised concerns about the location of a
research institute for forensic science within DOJ. The latter report
made recommendations for improving the scientific independence
and transparency of NIJ’s research program while remaining within
DOJ. The debate still continues on the appropriate location for a
research institute for forensic science in the United States, and this
committee did not take a position on that issue because of the
narrowness of its charge.
This report focuses on NIJ’s existing research role in forensic
science and identifies ways to strengthen the agency as a leader in
both developing and guiding short- and long-term research agendas
for forensic science in the United States. The committee believes
recent improvements made by NIJ have strengthened its functioning
as a science agency; however, it needs to do more. Building upon
NIJ’s recent progress, this report includes a set of recommendations
intended to improve NIJ’s capacity to support high-quality forensic
science research. If these recommendations are fully implemented,
the committee believes the forensic science research and
development program at NIJ will improve; however, these
recommendations are not a panacea for all systemic problems facing
forensic science, some are policy dependent and simply beyond the
scope of NIJ’s research and development mission.
 BOX S-1
Statement of Task

An ad hoc committee will conduct a study and prepare a report that will
review the progress made by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to
advance forensic science research since the 2009 report, Strengthening
Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, and the 2010 report,
Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Specifically, this study will
focus on (1) the role of the agency to lead critical areas of forensic science
research and (2) efforts to strengthen NIJ’s role as an independent scientific
entity. The review will examine the ways in which NIJ develops its forensic
science research priorities and communicates those priorities as well as its
findings to the scientific and forensic practitioner communities in order to
determine the impact of NIJ forensic science research programs and how that
impact can be enhanced. The committee will assess NIJ’s progress to date
and make recommendations for areas where continued improvement is
needed. The committee also will consider budgetary options and funding
directives in its assessment of NIJ’s forensic science portfolio.

FORENSIC SCIENCE RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES

Forensic science research is conducted in public laboratories,
private industry laboratories, and academia. Like NIJ, a number of
federal agencies, including but not limited to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory, and the
Defense Forensic Science Center (DFSC), conduct and support
forensic science research.
Among this group of federal players working to strengthen
forensic science research, NIJ has a unique and critical role. The
agency’s mission is to support research that will serve the nation’s
forensic science field, particularly at the state and local levels,
whereas other federal agencies have strategic objectives directed at
serving their individual missions and only indirectly affecting the
broad field of forensic science.
NIJ also has existing ties to both the forensic science research and
practice communities. As the federal government’s largest funder of
extramural forensic science research, NIJ supports research at state,
local, and federal laboratories and research conducted by academics.
Close ties to the forensic science practice community continue, as a
result of its administration of assistance and capacity-building grants
and its support for research conducted within state and local
laboratories. These connections enable NIJ to support the transfer of
promising evidence-based approaches into practice.

NIJ’S RESEARCH OPERATIONS: PROGRESS SINCE 2009

Given NIJ’s critical role in federal efforts to strengthen forensic
science research, the committee assessed the agency’s current
research operations and its progress toward that goal since 2009-
2010. The committee believes that NIJ has made some very useful
changes to its process for soliciting and awarding research grants,
thereby improving the agency’s scientific capability. These
improvements include

making its processes to identify the needs of forensic science

practitioners more transparent;
increasing the level of autonomy and independence for its
scientific peer-review process;
obtaining final sign-off authority for its research awards;
expanding the size of its research and development portfolio
across forensic science disciplines;
expanding outreach and dissemination to the practice and
research communities;
attracting new investigators to forensic science research;
increasing the number of graduate student fellowships; and
formalizing partnerships with other federal agencies involved
in forensic science research, including NIST, the FBI
Laboratory, DFSC, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives.

Taken together, these efforts have (1) restored authority that is

appropriate for a science agency and addressed some previous
concerns about NIJ’s independence and (2) contributed to the
building of a research infrastructure necessary to develop and
sustain research that advances forensic science methods.

BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE

NIJ’s scientific capacity has improved since 2009; however,
additional improvements are still needed. The committee offers
recommendations to NIJ to build upon the agency’s recent progress
and substantially improve the amount and quality of forensic science
research it supports.
In order to identify the needs of forensic science practitioners, NIJ
uses its established Technology Working Groups (TWGs). Gathering
input from these practicing forensic scientists is important, especially
considering that NIJ’s applied research portfolio is directed toward
improving forensic science methods and analytic techniques at crime
scenes or in forensic laboratories. However, the current forensic
science TWG does not adequately represent the needs of the broad
range of forensic science disciplines. In addition, the agency has yet
to develop mechanisms for integrating the perspective of
researchers into the process for identifying needs and scientific gaps
and opportunities. Including researchers in an advisory capacity will
enhance NIJ’s ability to prioritize research areas and develop short-
term and long-term research agendas.
Currently, the priority issues emphasized in the agency’s
solicitations appear to be reactive, and it is not clear how the
priorities announced by NIJ relate to an overall long-term research
agenda for forensic science. For this reason, the committee believes
that the development of a strategic plan for forensic science
research and development with short-, mid-, and long-term goals
and priorities will help NIJ build a portfolio of cumulative knowledge
and provide stability for researchers. Such a strategic plan should
guide all internal decision making, from the development of
solicitations to funding decisions. At a minimum, this plan will need
to include a research agenda with foundational research outcomes,
technology transfer outcomes, efficiency outcomes, and justice
system outcomes. The perspectives of both researchers and
practitioners should be integrated into the process of identifying and
prioritizing the research needs to be used in developing such a
strategic plan for NIJ’s forensic science research and development
program.
Recommendation 4-1: The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) should
take immediate steps to develop a formal and comprehensive strategic
plan for its forensic science research and development program. The
strategic plan should be based on a thorough understanding of the
state of the science, an analysis of NIJ’s past and current research
portfolios, and extensive consultation with both the research and
practice communities.

Recommendation 4-2: The National Institute of Justice should

establish a research advisory board that includes a broad array of
scientists, including forensic science researchers and practitioners, in
order to better integrate their perspectives into its processes for
identifying and prioritizing research needs. The research advisory
board should also monitor progress in achieving the strategic plan’s
designated goals.

In the last few years, NIJ has taken positive steps to strengthen
its ties to the research community. It has expanded outreach and
dissemination to the research community and has increased the
number of graduate student fellowships it awards. Through its
solicitations, NIJ has taken several steps to attract new investigators.
These efforts show promise for broadening the field of researchers
engaged in forensic science, but further outreach is needed in order
to build the research infrastructure and diversify the forensic science
research field. For example, NIJ should consider other opportunities
to support graduate students and attract proposals from researchers
in a broader set of disciplines by building knowledge within the
agency of emerging technologies in related fields that may have
forensic uses.
In addition to efforts to broaden the forensic science research
community and support the next generation of forensic science
researchers, NIJ should incorporate research and evaluation into all
of its forensic science activities. NIJ administers grant programs to
reduce casework backlogs and fund improvements in state and local
forensic laboratories. Given its science mission, it could require these
and other assistance grants to include a research component with
the potential to bring marked increases in casework processing and
accuracy and/or an evaluation component that will help provide an
evidence base that could be used to improve the outcomes of future
efforts. Especially in light of shrinking resources and increased
demand for services, NIJ needs the ability to invest in innovative
scientific research that promises to enhance laboratory capability by
orders of magnitude to address growing demand through either new
technologies or methods. This requirement would better integrate
NIJ’s research and development program with its assistance efforts.
Recommendation 4-3: The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) should
increase efforts to expand forensic science research by recruiting
researchers from the broader scientific community whose work may
have a nexus with forensic science. At a minimum, NIJ should promote
greater cross-field collaboration, conduct more outreach to research
communities in adjacent disciplines that do not currently focus on
forensic science applications, and increase the institutional knowledge
within NIJ of relevant technology developments in other fields that
might have forensic uses.

Recommendation 4-4: In keeping with its scientific mission, all of the

National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ’s) forensic science funding,
including capacity-building investments such as backlog reduction,
should include a research component and/or an evaluation
component. NIJ should create a clear translation pipeline from
research to implementation for promising approaches, and future
capacity-building funding should be tied to the use of evidence-based
practices.

The committee believes that the current level of federal funding

available to support NIJ’s program of forensic science research and
development is sorely inadequate to the task. Congressional
appropriations to support NIJ’s research programs have declined
since the early to mid-2000s and remain insufficient, especially in
light of the growing challenges facing the forensic science
community. In addition, the programmatic staffing for forensic
science research has not changed commensurate with the increasing
scope of responsibilities for NIJ in this area.
With limited base funding, NIJ funds research and development
from the appropriations for DNA backlog reduction programs and
other assistance programs. These carved-out funds are essentially
supporting NIJ’s current forensic science portfolio, but there are
pressures to limit the amount used for research from these
programs. In the past 3 years, funding for these assistance
programs has declined; therefore, funds available for research have
also been reduced. In addition, some of NIJ’s formalized federal
partnerships, although commendable, as currently executed depend
solely on the agency for funding and further diminish the agency’s
limited resources for funding its own projects.
The varying and unpredictable funding levels from year to year are
counterproductive to the agency’s goals and contribute to the
difficulty of establishing a long-term research agenda for forensic
science. Funding stability, at least at some core level, as well as
staffing commensurate with increasing responsibilities for forensic
science research, would improve NIJ’s ability to establish appropriate
short- and long-term research agendas for forensic science.
Recommendation 4-5: Federal policy makers should ensure the ability
of the National Institute of Justice to advance forensic science
research and development through dedicated, adequate, and stable
appropriations coupled with funding flexibility to help support both
short- and long-term research strategies. In order to ensure funding
stability from year to year, policy makers should designate a dedicated
funding stream for research and development that is of sufficient
magnitude to address the challenges facing forensic science.

To build support for a robust research budget, the impact of NIJ’s

forensic science research and development program must be more
effectively communicated to researchers, practitioners, policy
makers, and the public. In addition to employing a science writer
and using multiple media venues to alert audiences to available
research findings, NIJ supports the Forensic Technology Center of
Excellence in its role to provide resources and workshops to
practitioners and to maintain a connection between NIJ’s research
portfolio and the practice of forensic science. However, the center’s
efforts are not reflected in a strategic research plan or a strategic
communication’s plan.
NIJ should develop a strategic communication plan that
proactively promotes the value of the agency’s investment in
research and development in forensic science to policy makers and
the public by stressing the importance of forensic science research
to the criminal justice system and by estimating future savings from
the creation and adoption of innovative tools and techniques.
Implementation of a well-thought-out communications plan will help
the agency achieve its goal of advancing forensic science by
encouraging the uptake of innovative evidence-based practices by
practitioners and more actively recruiting researchers from related
disciplines.
Recommendation 4-6: In concert with the development of a strategic
plan, the National Institute of Justice should develop and implement a
strategic communication plan that directs its messages in ways
appropriate to its various constituencies. This plan should include
valuable in-person activities, such as hosting national conferences and
workshops.

Recommendation 4-7: As part of its strategic plan, the National

Institute of Justice should support transfer of technologies developed
in its research and development portfolio to end users.

NIJ currently does not have adequate mechanisms to measure

and communicate the impact of its forensic science research and
development program. It has recently made strides in this area: NIJ
now routinely tracks publications and presentations, dissemination
activities, and technology-transition activities. However, the mere
counting of these activities only measures the productivity of its
funded researchers and does not assess the impact of research
output on the practice of forensic science. NIJ should develop a set
of metrics that go beyond primarily tracking outputs to a process
that also measures the outcomes resulting from the activities it
supports (e.g., increased accuracy of particular forensic methods,
the use of NIJ-sponsored research to set legal precedent, and the
implementation of new methods and techniques in laboratories).
These metrics, measuring both outputs and outcomes, should be
used to continuously evaluate NIJ’s impact.
Recommendation 4-8: The National Institute of Justice should develop
an appropriate set of procedures and metrics to measure outcomes
regularly and evaluate the impact of its forensic science research and
capacity-building portfolio.

CONCLUSION
The need to improve the scientific basis for some forensic
disciplines is high: because of the volume of forensic transactions
processed annually in the United States, even the smallest of error
rates can have great consequences and erode the public’s
confidence in a fair and credible criminal justice system. Given NIJ’s
mission to serve state and local law enforcement as well as its ties to
the forensic science research and practitioner communities, the
agency has a unique and critical role to play in efforts to advance
forensic science research.
NIJ has made progress in the past 5-6 years toward improving its
research operations and expanding efforts to build a research
infrastructure in forensic science. Given this progress, it is now
better positioned as a science agency. Although these improvements
provide a solid foundation, more work is necessary to bolster NIJ’s
ability to advance forensic science research. This report offers
recommendations to strengthen the role, capacity, and commitment
of NIJ to support forensic science research. However, NIJ’s ability to
improve forensic science research in the foreseeable future will be
constrained without adequate support from federal policy makers
across both the executive and legislative branches. Support from
DOJ leadership is particularly essential, given that NIJ’s placement
within the department has been perceived as a potential source of
conflict of interest (National Research Council, 2009b, pp. 79-80).
Assuming these recommendations are fully implemented and any
barriers overcome, this committee believes NIJ has the potential to
lead forensic science research across the federal government, a role
with clear and striking consequences for the criminal justice system.
 1

Introduction

Forensic science is the application of science-based techniques and

technologies to the identification and quantification of criminal
justice evidence. Reliable and valid forensic science analytic
techniques are critical to a credible and fair criminal justice system.
The state of forensic science in the United States, its infrastructure
and delivery, have been the focus of increasing attention by
Congress, the courts, and the media, and they have been previously
studied in depth in earlier National Research Council (NRC) reports
(National Research Council, 2004, 2008a, 2009b; National Research
Council and Federal Judicial Center, 2011).
Concerns have been raised repeatedly about the ability of the
criminal justice system to collect and analyze evidence efficiently and
to be fair in its verdicts. Although significant progress has been
made in some forensic science disciplines, the forensic science
community still faces many challenges. To address some of these
challenges, an extensive program of high-quality, strategically
focused forensic science research is vital to improving the quality,
validity, reliability, and breadth of forensic tools available to the
criminal justice system. Federal leadership, particularly in regard to
research and the scientific validation of forensic science methods, is
needed to help meet the pressing issues facing state and local
jurisdictions.
Many federal agencies support and engage in research that could
benefit the forensic science disciplines. However, the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is
currently the only federal agency specifically charged with advancing
scientific research, development, and evaluation on crime and crime
control and the administration of justice and public safety. Its
research and development portfolio covers a broad set of areas
designed to address present challenges of the criminal justice field,
including advancing DNA technologies, pattern comparison, and
other forensic science methods.
NIJ asked the NRC to appoint an ad hoc committee to provide an
independent review of the progress the agency has made in
improving its research operations in regard to its forensic science
research and development program. In response, the NRC
established the Committee on Strengthening Forensic Science at the
National Institute of Justice to assess NIJ progress and to make
recommendations to improve NIJ’s forensic science research
program.

CHARGE TO COMMITTEE
The charge to the committee is as follows:
An ad hoc committee will conduct a study and prepare a report that will
review the progress made by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to advance
forensic science research since the 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic
Science in the United States: A Path Forward, and the 2010 report,
Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Specifically, this study will
focus on (1) the role of the agency to lead critical areas of forensic science
research, and (2) efforts to strengthen NIJ’s role as an independent scientific
entity. The review will examine the ways in which NIJ develops its forensic
 science research priorities and communicates those priorities as well as its
findings to the scientific and forensic practitioner communities in order to
determine the impact of NIJ forensic science research programs and how that
impact can be enhanced. The committee will assess NIJ’s progress to date
and make recommendations for areas where continued improvement is
needed. The committee also will consider budgetary options and funding
directives in its assessment of NIJ’s forensic science portfolio.

In undertaking the charge, the committee set about gathering

information from NIJ and a number of NIJ’s federal and research
partners (see Appendix A for a full list of speakers at the committee’s
three information-gathering meetings) in order to examine how NIJ
carries out its research mission in the area of forensic science. The
committee reviewed how research priorities are developed,
communicated, and implemented; how young and future scholars
are supported; and how research findings are disseminated to the
academic community and other stakeholders. In discussions with the
committee, NIJ noted it has worked toward addressing many of the
recommendations in the NRC report Strengthening Forensic Science
in the United States: A Path Forward (National Research Council,
2009b)1 but has particularly focused on three recommendations that
relate to its research mission (see Recommendations 3, 5, and 6 in
Appendix B). Efforts to improve NIJ’s stature as a science agency are
occurring at a time when there is a weakening of confidence in the
reliability and validity of forensic science. A stronger research effort
and knowledge base would do much to improve confidence but
cannot address all the challenges facing forensic science. Other
organizations and working groups will also need to take the lead on
issues of policy, standards, or training.
The committee considered whether NIJ has indeed made progress
from 2009 to the present in strengthening its role as an independent
scientific entity in order to advance forensic science research. The
committee agreed, after discussion, that the quality of NIJ’s
operations and procedures for building and managing its forensic
science research portfolio is critical to the overall quality of its
research portfolio. The committee examined NIJ’s ability to lead
critical areas of forensic science research by studying its current
research operations and how they have changed since 2009. A prior
NRC report Strengthening the National Institute of Justice provides
descriptions of NIJ’s earlier operations (National Research Council,
2010).2 Chapter 3 reviews the changes observed by the committee
since these two NRC reports.
The committee was asked to provide advice on the work
undertaken by NIJ regarding forensic science. Although the review
that follows responds to that specific charge, the committee was also
mindful of the broader concerns that have received much public
attention regarding the state of forensic science as portrayed in
Forensic Science: Path Forward.
The committee accepts the fundamental notion that any scientific
research organization must be independent, meaning that it is able
to carry out proposal reviews, make funding decisions, and report
research findings independently of any political or policy interference
in order to guarantee the objectivity of scientific inquiry. Protecting
research findings from even the appearance of undue influence is
necessary to ensure that the pressing forensic science challenges
facing the country are identified, studied, and met. Forensic Science:
Path Forward raised the question about the location of a research
institute for forensic science within DOJ, citing concerns about “the
potential for conflicts of interest between the needs of law
enforcement and the broader needs of forensic science . . .”
(National Research Council, 2009b, p. 17). Strengthening NIJ argued
that support of forensic science research was appropriate to NIJ’s
mission and that, if afforded increased independence and
transparency, NIJ could remain within DOJ’s Office of Justice
Programs (National Research Council, 2010, p. 2). This committee
considers the question of the optimal organizational location for NIJ
outside the scope of our work and has focused on identifying ways
to continue to improve the forensic science research program at NIJ
regardless of where it is placed within the government structure.
As context for the committee’s review of NIJ’s support for forensic
science research, the committee considered the overall array of
federal support for this kind of work. The committee found much to
admire but also saw missed opportunities. In this report, the
committee acknowledges NIJ’s progress since 2009 in bolstering its
procedures for soliciting and communicating the results of forensic
science research, but it also emphasizes actions needed to develop
and sustain a stronger forensic science research agenda that will
serve the nation.

CALL TO STRENGTHEN FORENSIC SCIENCE RESEARCH

Disparities exist among forensic science methods and technologies
in terms of their accuracy and reliability, error rates, research
foundation, and general acceptability. In addition, variations in
policies and procedures, the availability of resources, and access to
training have resulted in large differences among existing forensic
science services at the federal, state, and local levels (National
Research Council, 2009b; Gabel, 2014). Forensic Science: Path
Forward documented the lack of standards for the field, the absence
of rigorous practitioner and laboratory accreditation programs, and
problems with the interpretation of forensic evidence. That report
also articulated the need for adopting and implementing an
aggressive, long-term research agenda to strengthen forensic
science. Unfortunately, such a research agenda has not yet been
developed.
NIJ provides most of the funding for forensic science research,
both for research conducted within forensic laboratories (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2012) and for research conducted by academic
researchers.3 However, Forensic Science: Path Forward (National
Research Council, 2009b, p. 78) found that
Forensic science research is [overall] not well supported. . . . Relative to other
areas of science, the forensic science disciplines have extremely limited
opportunities for research funding. Although the FBI and NIJ have supported
some research in the forensic science disciplines, the level of support has
been well short of what is necessary for the forensic science community to
establish strong links with a broad base of research universities and the
national research community. Moreover, funding for academic research is
limited . . . , which can inhibit the pursuit of more fundamental scientific
 questions essential to establishing the foundation of forensic science. Finally,
the broader research community generally is not engaged in conducting
research relevant to advancing the forensic science disciplines.

The status of forensic science research funding has not improved

much since Forensic Science: Path Forward. NIJ is still the primary
federal source for funding for forensic science research, but the
agency’s overall budget is quite limited (see discussion in Chapter 3).
Although funding allotted to NIJ’s forensic science research portfolio
has increased since 2009, these funds are tied to the appropriations
for assistance programs (e.g., DNA backlog program) and the budget
for these programs has declined in the past 3 years. As a result, the
funding allocated to forensic science research within NIJ has varied
substantially from year to year. Stable and adequate funding is
essential to building a research field, and that is sorely lacking.
Forensic Science: Path Forward called for significant improvements
to the forensic science enterprise and argued for the creation of a
new, independent federal agency to advance forensic science into a
mature field of multidisciplinary research and practice. That report
made 13 recommendations that were to be carried out by the new
agency to help support and oversee the forensic science community.
Three of those recommendations specifically focused on advancing
forensic science research by enhancing the scientific rigor and
minimizing bias and human error across the forensic science
disciplines (see Recommendations 3, 5, and 6 in Appendix B).
Forensic Science: Path Forward recommended the creation of a
new independent federal agency was not followed, and, as stated
earlier, this committee did not take a position on that issue.4 One
recommended task for this new agency was “developing a strategy
to improve forensic science research” and “promoting scholarly,
competitive peer-reviewed research and technical development”
(National Research Council, 2009b, p. 19). Since the establishment
of a new agency does not appear likely in the near future, a goal of
this report is to recommend ways that NIJ can improve its forensic
science research portfolio.
 THE NIJ ROLE
NIJ has supported research in forensic science since the 1970s,
and it remains the principal federal agency funding research in the
field. There is continuing interest, expressed by academics, other
federal agencies, and forensic science practitioners, in a leadership
role in forensic science research for NIJ (see National Research
Council, 2010).5,6,7 However, congressional appropriations to support
NIJ’s research programs have declined since 2003-2008, and they
remain insufficient to adequately plan and sustain a long-term
research agenda for forensic science. NIJ has the authority to move
funds for research and development from the DNA backlog reduction
programs and other assistance programs, but it does so under
infrastructure and budgetary constraints (see discussion in Chapter
3).
Historically, NIJ’s forensic science research has focused on
technological solutions with the goals of improving the usefulness,
efficiency, and affordability of forensic analyses. For instance, NIJ
funded the application of research in biology and medicine to
forensic science through its forensic DNA portfolio. With support
from the DNA Initiative in the 2004 Justice for All Act8 and other
legislative actions, NIJ was able to sustain a long-term research
agenda in forensic DNA, which is still thriving (National Research
Council, 2010). However, during 2000-2009, NIJ did not have
discretion to apply this funding to other forensic techniques; as a
result, other areas received far less attention than DNA analysis
received (National Research Council, 2009b). Despite some growth
in research in the last few years, substantially more effort is needed
to provide other forensic techniques with the same scientific basis
established for forensic DNA.
In addition to funding research, NIJ carries out a number of
activities to support state and local forensic laboratories, including
testing and evaluation of forensic techniques, technical assistance in
the application of the science, and funds for DNA backlog reduction
and crime laboratory improvements. Strengthening NIJ concluded
that administration of these activities may have diminished NIJ’s
capacity to direct and sustain research in forensic science and other
areas (National Research Council, 2010, pp. 102-103).
Strengthening NIJ also identified ways to improve the agency’s
mandated mission to advance scientific research, development, and
evaluation. The report’s five recommendations aimed to provide the
agency with essential tools to support needed research on crime,
crime control, and the administration of justice (see Appendix B).
NIJ has acknowledged the findings and recommendations in both
Forensic Science: Path Forward and Strengthening NIJ; efforts to
respond to the recommendations are in motion, and some
improvements have been made to NIJ’s research operations
(National Institute of Justice, 2010, 2011a; Laub, 2011; Executive
Office of the President, 2014a, 2014b).9 Some of these efforts
include creating the Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences as
a parallel program office to the Office of Research and Evaluation
and the Office of Science and Technology within NIJ (see Figures 1-1
and 1-2), as well as establishing new partnerships; expanding
support to graduate students; and making adjustments to the
solicitation, review, and award processes. This committee’s report
examines NIJ’s efforts and comments on the progress made (see
Chapter 3). In addition, the report looks ahead to what is needed to
develop and sustain a strong research program for forensic science.
FIGURE 1-1 National Institute of Justice organization chart as of March 2008.
SOURCE: Adapted from National Research Council (2010, Figure 1-2).

FIGURE 1-2 National Institute of Justice organization chart as of May 2015.

SOURCE: Adapted from NIJ, see
http://www.nij.gov/about/Pages/organization.aspx [June 2015]. Figure last
modified July 25, 2012.

STUDY METHODS
The committee held four meetings during the course of the study.
The first three were information-gathering meetings during which
the committee heard presentations from a variety of stakeholders,
including the NIJ director and deputy director, representatives from
NIJ’s Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences, former NIJ
directors, and representatives from partner federal agencies,
including the FBI, the Defense Forensic Science Center, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Science
Foundation. The committee also heard from forensic scientists,
forensic laboratory directors and personnel, and academic
researchers who had worked with NIJ as principal investigators or
had served on peer-review panels or Technology Working Groups.
See Appendix A for more information on speakers and panelists. The
last meeting was closed to the public in order for the committee to
deliberate on the report and finalize its conclusions and
recommendations.
To understand NIJ’s processes and the forensic science program,
the committee reviewed multiple sources of information. Although
earlier documents were considered occasionally for comparison, the
assessment focused primarily on the period from 2009 to 2014. The
committee reviewed public documents such as authorizing and
appropriations legislation and NIJ’s solicitation and award archive, as
well as recent reports and articles on the state of forensic science in
the United States, including those released by the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy. The committee received
from NIJ responses and documents pertinent to a number of
questions regarding its budget; research awards; partnerships; the
Forensic Technology Center for Excellence; and its procedures for
setting priorities, peer review of grant proposals, and measuring
impact (see Appendix C for the committee questions to NIJ). During
the committee’s study, NIJ was notably forthcoming and timely with
information and responses to questions from the committee.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The committee’s report on its assessment of and guidance for NIJ
has been organized into four chapters. Following this introduction,
Chapter 2 describes the forensic science community—the landscape
of disciplines, forensic science practice, and forensic science research
—and assesses NIJ’s role among federal agencies that support
forensic science research. Chapter 3 reviews NIJ’s research
operations and examines the changes that have been made to the
agency’s operations since Forensic Science: Path Forward and
Strengthening NIJ and assesses whether efforts in motion are
building up an appropriate research infrastructure. The chapter also
summarizes the committee’s conclusions. Chapter 4 makes
recommendations for improving NIJ’s capacity to develop and
sustain a high-quality forensic science research program.
In addition to the main chapters, four appendixes supply
background information on this study. Appendix A gives a list of all
speakers at the three public meetings. Appendix B documents the
formal recommendations from Forensic Science: Path Forward and
Strengthening NIJ. Appendix C lists the committee’s questions and
requests for information directed to NIJ. Appendix D presents
biographical sketches of committee members.

______________
1Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward hereafter
will be referred to as Forensic Science: Path Forward.
2Strengthening the National Institute of Justice hereafter will be referred to as
Strengthening NIJ.
3The National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory, and Defense
Forensic Science Center, among others, also support forensic science research,
either internally or through funding of external grantees. (Chapter 2 further
discusses support for forensic science research.)
4Bills have been introduced in the past to advance the recommendations in
Forensic Science: Path Forward and change the administration of forensic science
research, but none have been enacted. See H.R. 3064 (113th Congress—2013-
2014), S. 2022 (113th Congress—2013-2014), H.R. 6106 (112th Congress—2011-
2012), and S. 3378 (112th Congress—2011-2012).
5Comments to the committee by the PI Panel on Impact of Research, April 1,
2015. See Appendix A for a list of speakers.
6Comments to the committee by the Federal Forensic Sector panelists on May 7,
2015. See Appendix A for a list of speakers.
7Comments to the committee by the NIJ Peer Review panelists on April 1, 2015.
See Appendix A for a list of speakers.
8Public Law 108-405.
 9See also NIJ’s acknowledgment of Forensic Science: Path Forward and its effort
to elevate forensic science, see http://www.nij.gov/about/Pages/organization.aspx
[June 2015].
 2

Forensic Science in the United

States

The forensic science field is composed of public and private entities

and organizations that range from those that conduct crime scene
investigations and medical examinations to state and local forensic
laboratories and federal agencies that provide forensic services and
training and support research. Scientific research, development, and
evaluation of new and existing tools and procedures are
indispensable toward advancing forensic science services and
ensuring the administration of justice. As such, academic researchers
who conduct basic and applied forensic science research are
considered an important part of the field.1 This chapter outlines the
forensic science disciplines within the field of forensic science and
the nature of services in the practice of forensic science. It considers
the need for forensic science research and examines the sources for
such research at the state, local, and federal levels. The chapter
concludes with the committee’s assessment of the role of the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in the landscape of forensic
science research.

SPECTRUM OF FORENSIC SCIENCE DISCIPLINES

The nature of the work within the forensic science field is broad,
and the level of scientific development and evaluation varies
substantially among the disciplines (National Research Council,
2009b, p. 182). According to Forensic Science: Path Forward,
Forensic science encompasses a broad range of disciplines, each with its own
distinct practices. The forensic science disciplines exhibit wide variability with
regard to techniques, methodologies, reliability, level of error, research,
general acceptability, and published material. Some of the disciplines are
laboratory based (e.g., nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis, toxicology,
and drug analysis); others are based on expert interpretation of observed
patterns (e.g., fingerprints, writing samples, toolmarks, bite marks). Some
activities require the skills and analytical expertise of individuals trained as
scientists (e.g., chemists or biologists); other activities are conducted by
scientists as well as by individuals trained in law enforcement (e.g., crime
scene investigators, blood spatter analysts, crime reconstruction specialists),
medicine (e.g., forensic pathologists), or laboratory methods (e.g.,
technologists).
(National Research Council, 2009b, p. 38)

The need to improve the scientific basis for some forensic

disciplines is high. Because of the volume of forensic transactions
processed annually in the United States (4.1 million transactions in
2009; see discussion below), even the smallest of error rates can
have great consequences and erode the public’s confidence in a fair
and effective criminal justice system.
The committee found NIJ’s listing of forensic science disciplines
used by the Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences (OIFS) in
its 2015 general forensic science research and development (R&D)
solicitation to be useful (National Institute of Justice, 2015b). Box 2-
1 includes these disciplines and adds digital evidence, a discipline for
which NIJ’s Office of Science and Technology makes awards.
 FORENSIC SCIENCE PRACTICE
Forensic science practice is broadly defined as using scientific
techniques to analyze and interpret evidence for use in legal
proceedings. Almost all types of forensic analyses, regardless of
specific discipline, address one or more of the following purposes:
identification (e.g., determining whether a white powder is cocaine),
determination of common origin (e.g., DNA profiles link a blood stain
to a suspect), or reconstruction of events (e.g., analyzing physical
evidence to determine the origins of a fire).
In general, forensic science practice in the United States takes
place in law enforcement identification units, public forensic
laboratories (state, local, and federal), medical examiner and coroner
offices, and academic institutions as part of departments or
standalone service centers. (Public forensic laboratories are
discussed in further detail below.) In addition, some forensic services
are performed at private for-profit laboratories; however, the number
of these entities is small (National Research Council, 2009b, p. 58).

BOX 2-1
Forensic Science Disciplines

Controlled substances
Digital evidence
DNA and forensic biology
Fire debris analysis and arson scene investigations
Firearms and toolmark identification
Forensic anthropology and odontology*
Forensic crime scene analysis
Forensic toxicology
Latent print
Medicolegal death investigations, including forensic pathology
Questioned documents
Shoeprint/tire tread examination
Trace evidence
______________
 *Forensic anthropology and forensic odontology are more commonly referred to as
separate disciplines; see National Institute of Standards and Technology (2015b).
SOURCE: National Institute of Justice (2011b, 2015b).

The 411 public forensic laboratories in the United States differ by

jurisdiction—municipal, county, state, and federal. According to the
2009 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
(CPFFCL) conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are
373 municipal, county, and state laboratories and 38 federal
laboratories in the United States.2 These laboratories performed an
average of five different forensic services, the most common being
controlled substance analysis, latent print examination, forensic
biology, crime scene response, and trace evidence analysis.
More than half of the estimated 4.1 million requests for forensic
services received by publicly funded crime laboratories in 2009 were
submitted to state laboratories (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012).
Although requests for services have increased, funding for
laboratories has not kept pace with the demand (National Research
Council, 2009b, p. 58). Budgetary support for the laboratories comes
from their jurisdictions (and/or the agency with oversight of the
laboratory), but 69 percent of laboratories in 2009 reported receiving
some additional funding from grants (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2012). The majority of those grants are administered by NIJ as part
of its laboratory capacity-building and assistance-funding streams.
Because of the increased demand for services and limited
resources, case backlogs are a persistent problem that reduces faith
and confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to be fair.
By year-end 2009, according to the CPFFCL, the 411 publicly funded
laboratories had a backlog of about 1.2 million requests (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2012). Box 2-2 discusses the forensic services
backlogs in greater detail.

FORENSIC SCIENCE RESEARCH

 Validity, reliability, and also credibility in the practice of forensic
science are critically dependent on a strong research base. Forensic
science research is both basic and applied in character, and it occurs
in public laboratories, private industry laboratories, and academia;
almost all of it is funded by the federal government (discussed
further below).
Table 2-1 shows the small percentage of publicly funded forensic
crime laboratories with resources dedicated specifically for research,
for which the primary funding source is NIJ (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2012).3,4 In remarks to the committee, representatives
from state and local public laboratories expressed their desire to
perform more research but stated that due to casework load and
resource constraints (time, staff, budget), they were unable to do
so.5

BOX 2-2
Forensic Services Backlogs and the Need for Research

In general, forensic requests that have been submitted to laboratories but

are not examined and reported to the submitting agency within 30 days are
considered “backlogged” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012). Ultimately, these
backlogs are a symptom of insufficient capacity to meet demand. Though
progress has been made in reducing the backlog for certain services in recent
years, the problem persists and in some cases is growing (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2012, p. 5).
In order to reduce backlogs, a laboratory can increase capacity by
increasing the human and/or technological resources of current systems (e.g.,
more hires and more equipment), improving the efficiency of current
procedures, or adopting more efficient new technologies. Historically, efforts
to reduce casework backlogs and fund improvements in forensic laboratories
have been used to directly support the purchase of equipment, training, and
additional staffing (Nelson, 2010). Laboratories may also restrict the types
and quantities of evidence that they will analyze in order to address backlogs;
while this may improve turnaround times, it presents other justice issues.
Given the large increase in the number of requests for services, innovative
solutions are needed to address not only capacity but also efficiency and
effectiveness in case processing. Investments in forensic science research are
necessary to develop these scientific innovations to revolutionize precision
and capacity. For example, a current National Institute of Justice–funded
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 THE KNIGHTLY WASTE-PAPER MAN

I
There was once a young noble who was very poor. He was a
Samurai who had offended his lord and so was obliged to leave his
own province and travel in search of employment. It was very hard
for him to find anything to do, for neither he nor his fair young wife
had been taught to work.
“Alas! my bride! White as the lily art thou and tender as the
carnation,—to what has thy love for me brought thee!” he cried.
But Tsuiu caressed him sweetly and said, “I am happy since my
lord has taken me with him. The good-luck god will surely hear our
prayers and we shall find a fortunate issue.”
Then was the soul of Shindo lightened and he strode along the
highway gladly, and Tsuiu walked beside him, and the breath of the
morning was sweet and kind. They walked for many hours and found
no rest; but the music of the grass-larks was sweet and the sun was
bright.
But when the shadows began to fall, and the fireflies to flit among
the tall grasses, and the moon to creep slowly above the crest of the
mountains, the little wife drew closer to Shindo San; for in her terror
she saw robbers in every tree and bush.
“Be not afraid, my beloved,” he said, as he drew her within his
sheltering arms. “See! here is a pleasant knoll beneath this sendai
tree. Wrap yourself in my mantle. Pillow your head upon my arm.
Then may the god of dreams send you a good-luck dream and may
your slumber be sweet. I will watch!”
“I will obey, my lord,” said Tsuiu. She closed her eyes, and, holding
the left sleeve of her kimono across her face, she was soon fast
asleep.
Shindo watched and waited, his hand upon his sword; but he too
was weary, and soon his eyes closed and his head drooped. He
slept and dreamed that two huge dragons came out of the West and
sought to devour them; and lo! as he cried aloud in terror for the
safety of Tsuiu San, a greater Dragon came out of the East and
devoured the first two, and he and his bride escaped.
Then he awoke suddenly and sprang to his feet, putting O Tsuiu
San behind him, for robbers were upon him, and there were two. He
drew his sword and fought fiercely, but they well-nigh overpowered
him. He felt his strength fail. The blood was gushing from a wound in
his arm. Suddenly there appeared upon the scene a ronin who
quickly put to flight the robbers and saved the life of Shindo.
Then he and O Tsuiu San thanked the ronin very heartily, and
finding the morning dawn at hand, and hearing the morning bell from
a distant temple, they started on their way.
“Tell me first, whence you come and whither you go,” said the
ronin. “For I well see that you are of better times, and that misfortune
has brought you here.”
“We are in dire distress,” said the Samurai, “and I have scarce a
yen[8] to buy rice for the breakfast of my wife.” Then he told all their
story to the ronin, who, being of a good heart, was grieved at their
sorrows.
“It is little that I can do for you myself,” he said, “since I am but a
wanderer with nothing in my sleeves. But come with me and I will set
you in the way of making a good but simple friend. Yonder are the
towers and temples of Yedo,” and he pointed to the roofs of a city
gleaming gold in the morning sun. “In a certain street lives a
tradesman, a poor fellow, yet of a good heart. He bears the name of
Chohachi. Seek him and tell him I commend you to his kindness. My
road lies elsewhere. Sayonara!”[9]
Bidding good-by to the ronin, the two hurried on and finding
Chohachi, he took them in and made them welcome. There they
remained several days until O Tsuiu San recovered from her fatigue,
and Shindo from his wound. Then Chohachi spoke.
“Honored One,” he said, “very welcome are you and yours to the
shelter of our roof tree, but the rice pot holds not enough for four. Is
there any way in which you are able to make the pot boil?”
“Good friend,” replied Shindo, “in the house of my fathers the rice
pot ever boiled without assistance from me. I know no way.”
 Chohachi knit his brows.
“Can the Honorable One teach the young men to fence?”
“Alas,” cried Shindo. “I have little skill as a swordsman. I fear I
know not enough to teach fencing.”
“Can the Honorable One teach writing?” demanded Chohachi.
“Of that I know even less,” replied his guest, so mournfully that
Chohachi hastened to reassure him. “Some way shall be found to
boil the pot even if we have to hunt the magic paddle of the Oni.”
So the tradesman thought and thought.
“What can this dear fellow do?” he asked himself.
“It must be something of the easiest for he seems not to have
much thought for trading. I have it! He shall be a waste-paper man! A
boy or a simpleton could do that!”
So he purchased a light pole of bamboo with two baskets at the
end, and a pair of bamboo sticks. He called the Samurai “Chobei,”
for Shindo was too fine a name for a waste-paper man, and the
Samurai was started in business.
The first day Chobei lost himself, and had to pay a man to guide
him home. He had bought no waste paper and Chohachi laughed at
him, and scolded, too, saying,
“Call out! No one will know what you want if you walk about the
streets in silence like a monk!”
Chobei was anxious to do all things right, for it pained him to be
depending upon the good trader, and it hurt him still more to think of
little O Tsuiu San sitting all day over her embroidery, trying to earn a
few coins with which to boil the pot.
So, in order to grow used to the sound of his own voice, he went to
an open lot, where there was not a house in sight, and shouted,
“Waste paper! waste paper!” all day until he was hoarse. The street
boys thought he was mad, and they laughed at him and threw
stones. Then he went home more discouraged than ever, and
Chohachi, choked with laughter, explained again patiently,
“See, good Samurai, go into the back streets; rich people do not
sell waste papers. Talk with the women, engage them with pleasant
words and flattery, and then say, ‘Perhaps you have some waste
paper to sell.’”
“chobei went forth to try again”
 So Chobei went forth to try again, and this time he sought in the
poorer streets. There young women were washing upon the steps,
children were playing upon the pavement, old women were talking in
the doorways, and to them all Chobei smiled and bowed, “May the
sun goddess smile upon you, honorable august Madame,” he would
say with his most courtly air. “That you and your honorable family are
in good health is my wish. It gives me pleasure to meet you. I am
from a far street and I ask the honor of your acquaintance. Have you
any waste paper to sell?”
Although the good women understood, he might have left unsaid
all his remarks except the last. But they were pleased with his air,
and they ransacked their houses for waste paper. They called him
the “Knightly Waste-paper Man,” and soon he had a very good trade
and earned many yen, which Chohachi helped him carefully to
spend. Then O Tsuiu San and the little daughter whom the gods sent
to them, were well cared for.

II
One day the Knightly Waste-paper Man was crying his wares
through the streets when he saw a crowd about a man who had
fallen by the way.
“’Tis but a starving beggar,” said one. But Chobei had learned
much in the days when he had walked the streets without a sen[10] in
his sleeves, and his heart was tender. He hurried to the beggar’s aid
and to his surprise found that he was no other than Bun-yemon, the
ronin who had helped him to escape from his home, when his lord
was angry so long ago. He caused him to be taken up and carried
home.
That night Chobei talked long with Tsuiu.
“Gratitude is a sacred duty,” he said. “But for this ronin perhaps we
should have been murdered, and now that he has reached this low
estate, it is our place to help him, but how?” O Tsuiu San sighed.
“In all these years, my lord,” she said, “we have lived by the favor
of the gods, but we have saved nothing. How much should we give
Bun-yemon?”
 “Not less than twenty-five gold rio,[11]” said Chobei. “It is a fortune!
There is but one way in which we might obtain it. We might sell
Iroka.”
“Sell my daughter!” cried Tsuiu. “My lord, my lord!” and she wept
bitterly. Chobei wept also, but at last he said,
“It is terrible for me as well as for you, but do you not see that
there is no other way?”
“There is no other way,” said Tsuiu, to whom the will of her lord
was law.
Then they told Iroka all the story and she said,
“Honorable parents, there is no other way. Permit me to be sold,
for it is an honor for me to become a geisha for the debt of my
parents.”
Therefore, with many tears, they sold Iroka and, as she was very
pretty, they obtained for her the sum of five and twenty gold rio.
This Chobei bore to Bun-yemon who refused to take it; but
Chobei, pretending to restore it to his own pocket, slipped it into a
lacquered box and departed. After he was gone, the wife of Bun-
yemon found the money, and her husband was very angry with her,
that she had not watched more carefully.
“This good fellow should never have given me the money,” he
said. “He is poor—only a waste-paper man. I will not take it for
anything. You must carry it back.”
“But I know not where he lives,” said the wife. “And since you have
the money, let me go to the pawnshop and redeem your jeweled
sword, that we may sell the sword for a larger sum. Then we can pay
back Chobei and still have something for ourselves.”
After much coaxing Bun-yemon at last consented to do this and
redeemed the sword. But the pawnbroker’s clerk was angry, for he
had expected to own the sword for the small sum which had been
lent Bun-yemon. So he accused Bun-yemon of stealing the money
and officers came and carried him to prison, setting a watch upon his
wife.
She, however, determined to free her husband. The Machi-Bugyo
of Yedo was the most righteous of judges and she went straight to
him, escaping from the watchful eye of the officers when there was a
fire in the neighborhood and every one was much excited. She found
the Machi-Bugyo, as he was riding to inspect the firemen, and she
knelt in the dust, catching hold of his bridle rein.
“Most noble Machi-Bugyo,” she cried. “Honorably deign to listen.
They have taken my husband from me, and they accuse him
unjustly. You, who are the friend of the poor, save him!”
The Lord of the city listened, and, being of a good heart, he had
compassion upon the wife of Bun-yemon. He ordered the clerk of the
pawnbroker to appear before him, and also Bun-yemon. And Chobei,
hearing of the trouble, appeared and told that he had given the
twenty-five gold rio. Bun-yemon was therefore cleared from the
charge of theft.
“Go in peace,” said the Machi-Bugyo to him. “The master of the
evil clerk shall pay a fine of one hundred gold rio, because a master
should have only honest servants. The wicked clerk shall be put to
death, for he witnessed falsely against an innocent man. The gold
shall be given to Bun-yemon who must, with twenty-five rio, redeem
the daughter of Chobei.
“As for you, Chobei, you have done well in paying your debt of
gratitude at so great a cost to yourself; and your daughter is to be
commended for her obedience. Take this reward for you both,” and
he gave him a hundred yen. “Be dismissed, for I have spoken.”
Then were all happy, for Iroka was returned to her parents and
Chobei’s friend, Chohachi, was rewarded for his kindness of heart.
The whole matter soon coming to the ears of the Shogun, he
commanded the old lord of Chobei to forgive him and restore him to
his home. Then was Chobei, whom men again called Shindo, very
happy, and he no longer cried “Waste Paper!” through the back
streets of Yedo. But there he is not forgotten, for when the women
gather to gossip they speak of him with smiles, saying ever of him,
“Isuzure wo kite mo kokoro wa nishiki (coat of rags, heart of
brocade).”
 Footnotes
[8] Japanese coin equivalent to our dollar.
[9] Good-by.
[10] A Japanese coin equivalent to our cent.
[11] A Japanese ounce.
 THE HUNTER AND THE PRIEST
There was once a hunter who dwelt in the village of Kyoto and
sought his game upon the mountain of Atagoyama. He was proud of
being so mighty a hunter, for he never came empty-handed from the
forest; yet at times he felt ill at ease. This was because he made a
daily business of killing, and so he was displeasing to the Buddha.
[12]
To set his conscience at rest, therefore, he often made offerings of
rice and fruit to a certain holy priest who dwelt in a little shrine upon
the mountain-side.
The priest was very good. Studying the sacred books he dwelt in
the solitude of the forest. He was so far from the homes of men that
he would have fared ill had it not been for the visits of the hunter who
brought to him supplies of things to eat.
One day the hunter came to the temple.
“Honorable one,” he said politely, “I have brought you a bag of
rice. May each grain be a prayer for me.”
“Good friend,” said the priest, “I thank you, and in return I will show
you a miracle. For many years I have read and studied and reflected
upon the Holy Books and it may be that I am receiving my reward.
Know then, that each night the Buddha comes to me, here at the
temple, riding upon an elephant. Do you not believe? Then tarry and
see.”
“i will show you a miracle”
 Speaking respectfully to the priest, the hunter said, “I long to see
this wonderful thing.” But in his heart he said to himself, “This thing
can not be true.”
Then he turned to the little temple boy and asked, “Have you seen
this marvel?”
“Six times I have seen Fugen Bosatsu and fallen before him,” said
the boy; and the hunter marveled again.
Dark and silent was the night, save for the wind spirit who swept
through the trees, now whispering softly, now moaning as if in pain.
Behind the clouds the moon hid herself, throwing now and again fitful
gleams across the little shrine at the door of which knelt the priest
and his acolyte. Behind them stood the hunter, his heart filled with
unbelief. No word was spoken and only a quick indrawing of the
hunter’s breath betokened his amazement as the vision came.
In the east arose a star, which grew and grew until the whole
mountain-side seemed light; and then there appeared a snow-white
elephant with six huge tusks. Upon his back was a rider, and as the
figures neared the temple, the priest and the temple boy threw
themselves upon the ground, praying aloud to the Fugen Bosatsu.
But the hunter had no prayer within his soul. This thing seemed to
him not holy but accursed, and, springing in front of the priest, he set
a shaft, drew his bow to the full, and sent his arrow straight to the
heart of the Buddha. Straight to the heart it went, clear to the
feathers of the shaft, and lo! a terrible cry rent the air. No longer was
there white light over the mountain. All was darkness.
“Demon in human form!” cried the priest. “Is it not enough that you
spend your vile life destroying God’s creatures upon the earth? To
this sin, must you add that of destroying Buddha himself?”
“Not so,” replied the hunter. “Be not so rash. Judgment of others is
far too great a sin for one so holy as yourself. Listen, and I will
explain what I have done. I have not destroyed the Buddha. You
have been deceived. Do you think it is possible that I could see
Fugen Bosatsu? I am a mighty hunter, stained with the blood of living
creatures. This is displeasing to the Buddha. Now then, would he
reveal himself to me? The boy too is but a lad, and why should he
see holy visions? You think because you have read and studied
much, and because you are of a pure life and a truthful tongue that
the Buddha desires to do you honor and reveal to you Fugen
Bosatsu. No, good sir, for were this true, you alone could see the
vision and it would not be vouchsafed to two sinful ones beside.
“Indeed, you saw not Fugen Bosatsu, but something deceiving
and false; and when the morning comes I will prove to you that I
speak the truth.”
So when the morning broke in golden streams across the
mountain-top the hunter and the priest looked long and carefully, and
they found a spot of blood where had stood the vision of the night.
Another and another they found, forming a slender trail which led
deep into the forest, and ever the crimson trail grew larger and larger
until at last they found a pool of blood beside the body of a huge
badger which lay dead, pierced by an arrow.
“See,” said the hunter. “You have been deceived though you are
far holier than I. All your study can not teach you what I was taught
by common sense.”
 Footnotes
[12] Buddhism does not approve the taking of life.
 THE PRINCESS MOONBEAM
A woodman once dwelt with his wife at the edge of the forest,
under the shadow of the Honorable Mountain. The two were
industrious and good, but though they loved each other they were
not happy. No children had come to bless them and this the wife
mourned deeply.
The husband pitied her and treated her very kindly, yet still she
was sad. As she gazed upon the snows of Fujiyama her heart
swelled within her and she prostrated herself and said, “Fuji no
Yama, Honorable Mountain, my heart is heavy because no childish
arms encircle my neck, no little head nestles in my bosom. From thy
eternal purity send some little white soul to comfort me!”
The Honorable Mountain spoke not; yet as she prayed, lo, from its
heights there sparkled and glowed a tiny light. Fitful and gleaming it
seemed, yet it had a silver radiance as of the moon.
The woodman’s wife beheld it, and she called to her husband
eagerly, “Come hither, I pray you. See the strange light which comes
from Fuji San. I seem to see a face smiling at me. It is the face of a
little child!”
Then her husband smiled at her fancy, but, because he loved her,
he said indulgently, “I will go and see what it is.”
“I thank you, my lord; go quickly!” she replied.
So, quickly he went to the forest, and as he neared a mountain
stream, with Fuji gleaming cold and white in the moonlight, he saw
the strange light, which seemed to hover and rest upon the branches
of a tall bamboo. Hastening thither he found there a moon child, a
tiny, fragile, fairy thing, more beautiful than any child he had ever
seen.
“Little creature,” he said. “Who are you?”
“My name is Princess Moonbeam,” she answered sweetly. “My
mother is the Moon Lady, and she has sent me to Earth because
every Moon Child must do some good thing, else will its silvery light
become pale and wan and be of no avail.”
 “Little Princess,” he said eagerly, “the best of good deeds is to
comfort a sad heart. Come home with me and be a child to my wife,
who weeps for children. Thus will your beams grow bright.”
“I will go with you,” said the little Moonbeam, and, rejoicing greatly,
he bore her tenderly to his wife.
“I bring you a treasure,” he said. “The Moon Lady sends you this
beam of light to lighten your sad heart.”
“lovelier grew the moon child every year”
 Then was his wife much overjoyed and she took the little creature
to her bosom and cared for her.
Lovelier grew the Moon Child every year and much she rejoiced
the hearts of her foster parents. Her hair was like a golden aureole
about her face. Her eyes were deep and tender, her cheeks were
pale and delicate, and about her there was a subtle and unearthly
charm. Every one loved her, even the emperor’s son, who, hunting in
the forest, saw her lighting up the humble cottage with her heavenly
light. He loved her dearly and she loved him, but alas! she could not
marry him because her life upon the earth could be but twenty years.
Then she must return to her home in the moon, for so willed her
mother the Moon Lady.
At last the day came when she must go. Her parents wept, and
could not be consoled; and her lover, who was now the emperor,
could not keep her, although he besought High Heaven to spare her.
Her mother caught her up in a silver moonbeam; and all the way to
the Moon the little Princess wept silvery tears. As the tears fell from
her eyes, lo! they took wings and floated away looking for the form of
her beloved, the emperor, who might see her no more.
But the silver-bright tears are seen to this day floating hither and
yon about the vales and marshes of fair Nippon. The children chase
them with happy cries, and say, “See the fireflies! How fair they are!
Whence came they?”
Then their mothers relate to them the legend and say, “These are
the tears of the little Princess, flitting to seek her beloved”; and over
all, calm and eternal, smiles the Honorable Mountain.
 THE SINGLE LANTERN OF YAMATO
There was a poor woman in Yamato who was very good. She
prayed daily at the graves of her parents, although she was very old.
Daily she placed there some grains of rice, although she was very,
very poor. She went to the temple whenever she was able, and
prayed much. She was kind to the poor and gave always to the
hungry, so that often she went hungry herself.
“It is better to be hungry than to grow hard of heart,” she said.
Now they made a grand temple in Yamato and all the people were
proud and gave to it many yen. They gave a lantern of bronze so
wonderfully fine that all men wondered, for the workmanship was
delicate and beautiful. The lantern makers had sat and wrought upon
it for days with matchless skill and patience. The stand was large
and the light so small as to seem but a mere glimmer of the light of
the world.
Many lanterns were given to the temple and a rich man gave a
thousand large ones.
“All men shall see that I am of a generous heart,” he said proudly
to himself.
“she went to the temple and prayed much”
 The poor woman was grieved at heart.
“I have nothing to give,” she said. “The gods would accept nothing
that I have.” She looked carefully over her poor little house, but alas!
There was nothing any one would buy. She had only the barest
necessaries and these much worn and used for many years.
At last she bethought herself that she still possessed one thing
which she might sell. Her hair was yet long and black. It might not
bring much, but it would be worth something.
“I am too old to marry, no one cares how I look,” she said, smiling
to herself. “I will sell my hair to make a temple offering.”
So she sold it for a small sum, which happily she found was
enough to buy one little temple light. This she joyfully placed upon
the shrine.
How tiny it looked beside the rich man’s great ones! Yet its light
seemed to her to warm her old heart into fresher life, and she was
happy.
That night there was a great festival in the temple. All the lamps
were lighted, from the great ones of the rich man to the tiny one
which the poor woman had placed there with such loving care.
The whole temple was aglow with light, and all the people praised
the rich man and said, “How generous he is! How great!”
But just as they were praising him and admiring the lights, there
sprang up a sudden fierce wind. It blew so wild a gust that the light of
all the great lanterns of the rich man went out, and all was darkness.
Yet not all—for lo! there gleamed through the gloom a tiny light, as
bright as the light of day. It was the little light of the poor woman,
which with its spark seemed to light the whole great temple, and all
the people wondered. Then they looked with care to see whence
came the little light and when they found it was the gift of so humble
a soul they marveled again. But the priest of the temple, who was old
and good and very wise, said, “Do not marvel! In the sight of the All
Knowing One, the poor gift of a good heart is more worthy than all
the splendor of the rich and proud.”