I’m excited to share that my recent paper, co-authored with Charles Ramsay, was the subject of the latest Tox Lab podcast.
If you’re interested in the intersection of forensic science, law, and justice, take a listen.
Our article, Errors in toxicology testing and the need for full discovery, reviews the vulnerabilities inherent in toxicology, despite its foundation in analytical chemistry.
The podcast dives into the many ways things can and have gone wrong.
The podcast highlights key categories of toxicology errors we documented from across multiple jurisdictions:
Traceability and Calibration Failures: Errors stemming from incorrectly produced reference materials or using improper formulas.
Discovery Violations: The widespread problem of laboratories deliberately withholding exculpatory evidence, such as failed calibration records, from the defense.
Source Code Defects: Discussing how proprietary software can contain programming flaws, sometimes with more lenient tolerance limits than required by law, silently compromising the validity of thousands of tests.
Interfering Substances: Cases where the lab method failed to distinguish between compounds, like propionic acid being mistaken for ethylene glycol (antifreeze), or the more recent issue of distinguishing illegal delta-9-THC from other THC isomers.
Fraud and Misconduct: Covering deliberate misconduct, such as the manipulation and falsification of certification records and test data, as seen in cases like the Randox scandal in the UK.
Transparency is the Path Forward
The core of our paper is a call for systemic reform to enhance both scientific integrity and the pursuit of justice. As discussed on the podcast, key reforms include:
Transparency through Online Discovery Portals: Providing online access to all validation studies, maintenance records, and quality assurance reports.
Mandatory Retention of Digital Data: Preserving all digital data, including expirograms for breath tests, since the original samples cannot be retested.
Protection for Whistleblowers: Establishing legal protections for forensic scientists who report analytical problems, as the threat of retaliation creates a “chilling effect” that perpetuates problems.
The path forward is clear: transparency, accountability, and rigorous, independent oversight. Whether it’s mandating the disclosure of digital expirograms for breath tests, or establishing protections for scientists who speak up, these reforms are non-negotiable.
Many thanks to The Tox Lab for bringing this critical discussion to light.