Anthony Doesburg: Crime sleuths separate forensics

Scientists believe shows such as CSI need to be watched with a dose of skepticism. Photo / Dean Purcell

What's the difference between a research scientist and a forensic scientist? There aren't any top-rating TV series about the first breed.

Such is the popularity - and unreality - of crime dramas such as CSI and Bones that their warping effect on public perceptions is itself going under the microscope.

Forensic Science International, a journal read by real crime scene investigators, has published a paper by United States researcher Evan Durnal that highlights the TV myths: the idea that there's a machine that will spit out a full analysis of a sample within seconds; that there's always evidence to be found and that cases are invariably solved inside 60 minutes (including ads).

"The 'CSI effect', as it's called, has certainly changed everyone's perspective of forensic science and what they think forensic scientists do," says Anna Sandiford, a real-life forensic scientist in Auckland.

"The good thing about it is that it's raised awareness of what science can do and the amount it can contribute in solving crimes. That's actually really helpful because it's opened science up to a lot more people."

That doesn't stop Sandiford, of Auckland company Forensic Science and Research, from snorting at some of what she sees on TV. A recent episode of Bones in which an explosion is being investigated is typical.

"They prance into the scene without face masks, hair nets, body suits or even gloves and pick up the key piece of evidence that solves the whole crime. They haven't photographed it in situ, or there's no scale if they do take photographs - and then they walk out saying they've solved it."

Her reaction is: "Oh my god, you've got a whole room that's been blown to bits - perhaps you might like to take a look around." And how about wearing sensible clothes: "The other thing ... is that I wish I had the same budget for clothes as they do." The reality, once again, is a day spent inside a plastic protective suit that would make a mess of your Dolce and Gabbana outfit.

Another key difference between her field and that of research scientists is how they communicate. That's the subject of a talk Sandiford will be giving at SciCon, the New Zealand Association of Science Educators' conference, on Sunday.

As someone who frequently has to take the stand in court to describe scientific evidence in lay terms, Sandiford knows how to make the complex as simple as possible.

"I learned very early on that one of the main differences between research scientists and forensic scientists is that the former will use as much scientific jargon as possible. It cuts down the number of words in an article, for a start.

"But if you go into a courtroom and start talking in the same sort of language they're going to take one look at you and go, 'you're boring'," says Sandiford, who was scientific adviser to the defence team at the David Bain retrial.

Jenny Pollock, a science teacher at Nelson College for Girls, where SciCon is being held, thinks the net effect of shows such as Bones, of which she's a fan, is positive.

"I think it does spark an interest [in the classroom] but, obviously, you do have to introduce a dose of reality."

But turning students on to the subject is important.

"In this day and age there's a need for scientific literacy and also the ability to critically look at issues. A lot of woolly thinking goes on about all sorts of things. Science tries to teach a structured form of thinking, to suspend judgment until the facts are in."

While some of the sample analyses shown on TV are fanciful, forensic scientists do have tools that can yield startling results. "I get a lot of cases in the UK where we're looking at traces of drugs on banknotes," Sandiford says.

"Ninety-eight per cent of British banknotes are contaminated with cocaine. Somewhere between 40 and 70 per cent have traces of ecstasy and about 5 per cent have dimorphines from heroin and THC from cannabis on them - you just stop somebody on the street and analyse the money in their wallet and that's what you're going to come up with."

What it shows is the sensitivity of detection methods than can trace an amount of the drug about the billionth of the size of a salt grain, probably picked up from an ATM. It makes CSI seem not quite so far-fetched after all.

THE CSI EFFECT

Some studies claim that jurors who watch TV programmes such as CSI can have unrealistic expectations about forensic science's ability to produce certain results.

Anthony Doesburg is an Auckland technology journalist