Forensic science is one of the pillars of criminal justice. It is supposed to provide the hard evidence that cuts through uncertainty. A DNA match. A fingerprint. The digital evidence trail.
But here is the uncomfortable truth. The system that produces those results is far less reliable than the public believes.
Brian Gestring is a forensic scientist and consultant with more than 30 years of experience. He’s worked in nearly every area of forensic practice and over the course of his career and has tried to close that gap, making forensic services more reliable.
Unlike other high-consequence industries like aviation or nuclear power, there is no single authority over all forensic providers, and the field relies on agencies to voluntarily adopt quality standards.
Voluntary Compliance in a High-Consequence Field
How safe would you feel if the airline you flew with selected what safety measures they were going to comply with? Or if you went to the hospital, and the hospital could choose if they were going to sterilize the equipment they planned on using on you. Well, that’s the state of forensic practice currently in the United States.
There are standards that providers can follow, but for the most part they are optional, and the majority choose not to follow them. This means that there is no universal training that providers go through, no standard procedures that that they use, and there is no requirement that examiners be tested to ensure that they can get a correct result.
Providers also operate under a mix of federal, state, and local agencies. Many of those agencies are run by non-scientists, often law enforcement managers who do not have technical backgrounds.
The result is inconsistency. Some providers have strong systems. Others cut corners, whether by choice or by necessity. And the public never knows the difference until it is too late.
Structural Failures and Stalled Reforms
This is not a new problem.
The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report and the 2015 National Commission on Forensic Science both called for universal accreditation. The goal was to bring the entire field under common standards, ensuring consistency and reliability.
But those reforms stalled. Why?
Because there was no meaningful support or incentive for agencies to follow through.
Accreditation was presented as a “best practice,” not a requirement. Without funding or consequences, many providers simply ignored it.
The system remains fractured, underfunded, and uneven in quality.
Infrastructure and Incentives: A Model That Works
Brian Gestring believes the solution lies in combining infrastructure and incentives.
Infrastructure means giving providers the resources, training, and support to achieve compliance. Incentives mean attaching consequences for those who do not comply. Without both, reform fails.
We already have proof this model works.
CODIS: The Success Story
When the FBI launched the CODIS DNA databank in 1998, it required labs to be accredited to access the National DNA databank. Initially, the federal government offered infrastructure in the form of guidance, training, and funding. The incentive was access to the databank.
The result was widespread adoption and improved quality.
Biological Evidence: A Failure
On the other side, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Institute of Justice released guidance for biological evidence preservation. It provided infrastructure, but no incentive.
States like New York never passed laws to enforce it, even though the state played a major role in the innocence movement. Without consequences, adoption flatlined.
The lesson is simple. Forensic providers need both support and a reason to comply.
How Incentives Could Work
Federal grants are the key.
In 2024, the Department of Justice awarded $4.7 billion in grants. That money touches nearly every law enforcement agency and forensic provider in the country.
Gestring proposes tying compliance to funding. Providers that fail to meet accreditation requirements would lose access to grants, much like how the federal government pushed states to raise the drinking age to 21 in 1984 by restricting highway funds.
The message would be clear. Improve quality, or lose money.
A Five-Year Plan for Universal Accreditation
Gestring believes every forensic provider, not just labs, could be accredited within five years.
The standards already exist. ISO 17025 covers testing labs. ISO 17020 covers inspection agencies.
The challenge is scale. No one knows exactly how many unaccredited providers are out there.
Estimates suggest seven to ten times the number of accredited ones. Most are small law enforcement agencies with limited resources and few trained scientists.
Here is how Gestring thinks it can be done.
Year 1
Purchase standards, identify management staff, and begin training. Federal grants cover the costs. Funding restrictions begin for agencies that refuse to participate.
Year 1.5
Implement written procedures, training programs, and internal audits. The federal government provides model documents and training support. More funding restrictions for non-compliance.
Year 2
Introduce proficiency testing and corrective action systems. Agencies must demonstrate progress to keep their funding.
Year 2.5
Conduct internal audits, supported by federal training resources. Non-compliant agencies continue to face funding cuts.
Year 3
Launch external audits using staff exchanges between agencies to share expertise and identify weaknesses.
Year 4
Apply for accreditation. Accreditation vendors expand their capacity to handle the influx of applications.
Year 5
Agencies achieve accreditation or resolve remaining issues. Federal funding is restricted for those that fail.
To support this plan, Gestring envisions web-based training modules, small grants for fees and staff time, and personnel exchanges to share best practices.
Why It Matters
Critics sometimes frame this as a question of whether forensic science itself is valid. That is not the issue. The science works. The problem is the lack of quality control.
Plea agreements hide many of these issues because cases rarely go to trial. But errors still happen. When they do, they can destroy lives and erode trust in the entire justice system.
Unlike other industries, forensic science has never been forced to adopt mandatory standards.
That is why Gestring’s plan focuses on incentives. Federal money is already flowing. Tying it to accreditation would change the game without passing new laws or building new bureaucracies.
Key Takeaways
1. The crisis is about quality, not validity. Forensic science can be accurate, but without oversight, reliability is inconsistent.
2. Voluntary compliance is not enough. Other high-stakes industries enforce standards. Forensics should too.
3. The federal government already has leverage. By linking existing grants to accreditation, it can drive reform without new regulations.
4. The investment is modest compared to the benefits.Forensics can achieve universal accreditation in five years with structured support and meaningful incentives.
5. Digital evidence is especially vulnerable. Accreditation would close gaps in emerging fields and ensure reliability across all evidence types.
Final Thought
Brian Gestring has spent decades at the intersection of science and justice. He has managed crime labs, taught university programs, developed statewide standards, and testified in courtrooms. He knows the stakes.
His research makes one thing clear. Forensic science cannot continue to rely on voluntary compliance. The consequences are too high.
With a practical mix of infrastructure and incentives, the field can achieve universal accreditation in just five years. It has worked before with DNA databanks. It can work again across every forensic discipline.
