Letter to the Editor—Combating Bias: The Next Step in Fighting Cognitive and Psychological Contamination
First published: 04 January 2012
No abstract is available for this article.
References
- 1
National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press, 2009.
- 2
Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
A review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield case. Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General (OIG), 2006.
- 3
Risinger DM,
Saks MJ,
Thompson WC,
Rosenthal R.
The Daubert Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion.
Calif Law Rev
2002; 90: 1–56.
- 4
Dror IE,
Rosenthal R.
Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts.
J Forensic Sci
2008; 53(4): 1–4.
- 5
Dror IE,
Champod C,
Langenburg G,
Charlton D,
Hunt H,
Rosenthal R.
Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: inter-and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a “target” comparison.
Forensic Sci Int
2011; 208: 10–7.
- 6
Langenburg G,
Champod C,
Wertheim P.
Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons.
J Forensic Sci
2009; 54(3): 571–82.
- 7
Dror IE,
Hampikian G.
Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation.
Sci Justice
in press; doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004.
- 8
Thornton JI.
Letter to the editor—a rejection of ‘‘working blind’’ as a cure for contextual bias.
J Forensic Sci
2010; 55(6): 1663.
- 9
Dror IE.
How can Francis Bacon help forensic science? The four idols of human biases.
Jurimetrics
2009; 50: 93–110.
- 10
Thompson WC,
Ford S,
Gilder JR,
Inman K,
Jamieson A,
Koppl R, et al.
Commentary on: Thornton JI. Letter to the editor—a rejection of ‘‘working blind’’ as a cure for contextual bias.
J Forensic Sci
2011; 56(2): 562–3.
- 11
Krane DE,
Ford S,
Gilder JR,
Inman K,
Jamieson A,
Koppl R, et al.
Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation.
J Forensic Sci
2008; 53(4): 1006–7.
- 12
Koppl R,
Kurzban R,
Kobilinsky L.
Epistemics for forensics.
Episteme
2008; 5(2): 141–59.
