Strengthening forensic DNA decision making through a better understanding of the influence of cognitive bias
Open accessAbstract
Cognitive bias may influence process flows and decision making steps in forensic DNA analyses and interpretation. Currently, seven sources of bias have been identified that may affect forensic decision making with roots in human nature; environment, culture, and experience; and case specific information. Most of the literature and research on cognitive bias in forensic science has focused on patterned evidence; however, forensic DNA testing is not immune to bias, especially when subjective interpretation is involved. DNA testing can be strengthened by recognizing the existence of bias, evaluating where it influences decision making, and, when applicable, implementing practices to reduce or control its effects. Elements that may improve forensic decision making regarding bias include cognitively informed education and training, quality assurance procedures, review processes, analysis and interpretation, and context management of irrelevant information. Although bias exists, reliable results often can be (and have been) produced. However, at times bias can (and has) impacted the interpretation of DNA results negatively. Therefore, being aware of the dangers of bias and implementing measures to control its potential impact should be considered. Measures and procedures that handicap the workings of the crime laboratory or add little value to improving the operation are not advocated, but simple yet effective measures are suggested. This article is meant to raise awareness of cogn…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Knowing the DNA profile of the suspect can cause bias in developing the mixture of DNA profile from the crime scene so it fits the suspect's DNA profile.
“Similarly, knowing the DNA profile of the suspect can cause bias in developing the mixture of DNA profile from the crime scene (the evidence), so it fits the suspect’s DNA profile (Jeanguenat et al., 2017).”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Jeanguenat et al., 2017
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence
Morgan, J. (2023) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.15233 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX13): A modern analysis
Buckleton, J. S., Bright, J.-A., Cheng, K., Budowle, B., & Coble, M. D. (2018) · Forensic Science International Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.08.014 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationCasu, M., Guarnera, L., Caponnetto, P., & Battiato, S. (2024) · Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation · doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2024.301795 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects
Dror, I. E. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15040490 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citationForensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach
Taylor, M. K. (2024) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8503 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jeanguenat, A. M., Budowle, B., & Dror, I. E.
- Affiliations
- University of North Texas Health Science Center (US)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dror, Itiel E.
- Venue
- Science & Justice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 415-420
- ISSN
- 1355-0306 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2739073145
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 3.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Science & Justice (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- cognitive biases, forensic DNA interpretation, forensic decision-making, DNA evidence, quality assurance, context management
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Humans, Bias, DNA Fingerprinting, Workflow
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