CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Why does the UK need a Human Taphonomy Facility?

Open access
Williams, A., Rogers, C.J., Cassella, J.P.·2019·Forensic Science International
DOI 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Human Taphonomy Facilities (HTFs) are outdoor laboratories where scientific research is carried out on donated human cadavers in order to understand how human decomposition progresses in a variety of conditions. There are currently eight such facilities in the USA, one in Australia and one on mainland Europe. Forensic scientists in the UK have started to ask the question 'Does the UK need a Human Taphonomy Facility?'. A review of the literature produced by the existing HTFs, as well as published opinion and commentaries about these facilities and the feasibility of one in the UK has been undertaken. The existing arguments for and against the establishment of a Human Taphonomy Facility in the UK have been examined. Given recent media interest in the possibility of the establishment of a Human Taphonomy Facility in the UK, and the surrounding controversy, it is important to evaluate the potential benefit or harm of the creation of such a facility to Society and the scientific community.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.010

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Gill, 2017, Body farms, Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol., 1
  2. Forbes, 2017, Body farms, Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol., 1
  3. Blau, 2017, Body farms, Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol., 13, 484, 10.1007/s12024-017-9922-1 · DOI
  4. Byard, 2017, Body farms — characteristics and contributions, Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol., 1, 10.1007/s12024-017-9839-8 · DOI
  5. Connor, 2017, Testing of pigs as human proxies in decomposition studies, J. Forensic Sci., 0
  6. Bachmann, 2010, The influence of pre-burial insect access on the decomposition rate, J. Forensic Sci., 55, 893, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01403.x · DOI
  7. Schultz, 2006, Sequential monitoring of burials containing large pig cadavers using ground-penetrating radar, J. Forensic Sci., 51, 607, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00129.x · DOI
  8. Schultz, 2008, Sequential monitoring of burials containing small pig cadavers using ground-penetrating radar, J. Forensic Sci., 53, 279, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00665.x · DOI
  9. Pringle, 2012, Geophysical monitoring of simulated clandestine graves using electrical and ground penetrating radar methods: 0–3 years, J. Forensic Sci., 57, 1467, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02151.x · DOI
  10. Pringle, 2016, Geophysical monitoring of simulated clandestine graves using electrical and ground penetrating radar methods: 4–6 years, J. Forensic Sci., 61, 309, 10.1111/1556-4029.13009 · DOI
  11. Lynch-Aird, 2015, Decomposition rate and pattern in hanging pigs, J. Forensic Sci., 60, 1155, 10.1111/1556-4029.12796 · DOI
  12. Troutman, 2014, A preliminary examination of differential decomposition patterns in mass graves, J. Forensic Sci., 59, 621, 10.1111/1556-4029.12388 · DOI
  13. Knobel, 2018, A comparison of human and pig decomposition rates and odour profiles in an Australian environment, Aust. J. Forensic Sci., 1, 10.1080/00450618.2018.1439100 · DOI
  14. Dautartas, 2018, Differential decomposition among pig, rabbit and human remains, J. Forensic Sci., 0
  15. Stokes, 2013, Human vs animal: contrasting decomposition dynamics of mammalian analogues in experimental taphonomy, J. Forensic Sci., 58, 583, 10.1111/1556-4029.12115 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Madea, 2017, Body farms, Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol., 13, 480, 10.1007/s12024-017-9918-x · DOI
  17. Buffington, 2016, Microbial reconstitution reverses maternal diet-induced social and synaptic deficits in offspring, Cell, 165, 1762, 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hyde, 2013, The living dead: bacterial community structure of a cadaver at the onset and end of the bloat stage of decomposition, PLoS One, 8, 10.1371/journal.pone.0077733 · DOI
  19. Pechal, 2013, The potential use of bacterial community succession in forensics as described by high throughput metagenomic sequencing, Int. J. Legal Med., 1
  20. Vass, 2001, 28, 190
  21. Zhou, 2011, Factors and processes causing accelerated decomposition in human cadavers — an overview, Forensic Legal Med., 18, 6, 10.1016/j.jflm.2010.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Smialek, 1998, Diabetes and decomposition: a case of diabetic ketoacidosis with advanced post-mortem change, Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol., 19, 98, 10.1097/00000433-199803000-00019 · DOI
  23. Luong, 2018, Monitoring the extent of vertical and lateral movement of human decomposition products through sediment using cholesterol as a biomarker, Forensic Sci. Int., 285, 93, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.01.026 · DOI
  24. Black, 2017, Body farms, Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol., 1
  25. Shirley, 2011, Cadaver use at the University of Tennessee’s Anthropological Research Facility, Clin. Anat., 24, 372, 10.1002/ca.21154 · DOI
  26. Kuzminsky, 2012, Three-dimensional laser scanning: potential uses for museum conservation and scientific research, J. Archaeol. Sci., 39, 2744, 10.1016/j.jas.2012.04.020 · DOI
  27. Mays, 2010, Human osteoarchaeology in the UK 2001–2007: a bibliometric perspective, Int. J. Osteoarchaeol., 20, 192, 10.1002/oa.1021 · DOI
  28. Cablk, 2012, Characterization of the volatile organic compounds present in the headspace of decomposing animal remains, and compared with human remains, Forensic Sci. Int., 220, 118, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.02.007 · DOI
  29. Stadler, 2013, Characterization of volatile organic compounds from human analogue decomposition using thermal desorption coupled to comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry, Anal. Chem., 85, 998, 10.1021/ac302614y · DOI
  30. Wallman, 2017, Body farms, Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol., 13, 487, 10.1007/s12024-017-9932-z · DOI
  31. Schubert, 2018, Life or death research?, Pathologist
  32. Bytheway, 2015, The ethics and best practices of Human Decomposition Facilities in the United States, Forensic Sci. Policy Manag. Int. J., 6, 59, 10.1080/19409044.2015.1064190 · DOI
  33. Angela, 2012, Scavenging Behavior of Lynx rufus on Human Remains During the Winter Months of Southeast Texas, J. Forensic Sci., 57, 699, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02017.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 34

Metadata

Authors
Williams, A., Rogers, C. J., & Cassella, J. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Huddersfield (GB)
  • University of Wolverhampton (GB)
  • University of Staffordshire (GB)
Corresponding author
Williams, A.
ORCID
Venue
Forensic Science International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
296
Pages
74-79
ISSN
0379-0738 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.010
OpenAlex
W2913589269
Cited by
34
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Forensic Science International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Staffordshire Online Repository (Staffordshire University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (submittedVersion)
  • Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Keywords
human decomposition, body donation, outdoor laboratory, forensic taphonomy
MeSH terms
Animals, Cadaver, Dogs, Expert Testimony, United Kingdom, Humans, Laboratories, Odorants, Postmortem Changes, Smell, Models, Animal, Directed Tissue Donation, Biomedical Research, Forensic Sciences, Volatile Organic Compounds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review