Back to Basics

This past weekend I attended a martial arts seminar taught by the amazing Grand Master Steve Shover. At one point during the seminar I was actually stunned. Not from something flashy or complicated, but by something so simple and based on our timeless mantra, "where the head goes, the body will follow."

After trying the technique I laughed and asked my partner "Why didn't I ever think to do that?" In ten years of doing martial arts and facing that exact attack in the dojo, I had never once thought to counter it in that manner. Part of the problem is the noted ten years of training. We try to complicate things and do something fancy and we forget that sometimes the simplest way is the best way.

As scientists we are notorious for doing the same thing. (There is nothing in this universe more complicated than getting a group of scientists together for a social gathering.) I've had many head slap moments in the laboratory when my troubleshooting turned out to be something very simple. The problem is the same as mine in the martial arts context. We have enough experience to try to make it complicated. We start looking at ramp temperatures or replacing parts before realizing the gas isn't turned on or the needle is bent. We forget the basics in our focus on the details.

I found myself having to remind myself of the same thing on the stand. When you could recite a treatise on the question it's difficult to pull yourself back and focus on what the examiner is truly asking. It's excellent practice however and can help you to focus back on the basics. After all, going off on tangents to fully explain the question as we would in a scientific community is not useful in the court setting and defeats our purpose as an expert witness, which is to clarify the information for a layman. I truly believe that every chemist should go through a mock exam before launching into courtroom testimony. As scientists we have a hard time focusing on the basics and simply answering the question, but that is what's necessary to be an effective expert witness. Not only that but focusing on the basics can also help your troubleshooting abilities in the laboratory.

In martial arts, the best way to understand a technique is to teach it. This is because when you explain it to someone without experience (the fact finder) as opposed to when you discuss it with another of equal rank (the scientific community), you have to focus on the basics and in doing so you remember the basic principles involved and it allows you to apply those principles to the complicated stuff. The same applies for science. Keeping the basics, front and center, and keeping in mind simplicity, not only helps your testimony in the courtroom, but also keeps them in front when you are troubleshooting or developing a new method in the laboratory.

Lost in Translation: Science Speak vs. Legal Speak

One day not too long ago, I sat on the stand going back and forth with opposing counsel.

There was no major disagreement. Actually, there was no real disagreement at all. The problem was that we were speaking in different terms. At one point, opposing counsel smiled with a sigh, clearly giving me that look that said he knew I was never going to agree with him because he was the "opposition." I smiled back knowing what he was thinking and knowing that he was wrong.

I wasn't trying to be difficult. I usually try to be fairly pleasant when I'm testifying...I know, shocker right? Although I will admit that when counsel becomes hostile my testimony can become rather short. Kind of like this wonderful scene from "Better off Ted."

Female Lawyer: Were you involved in the development of this product? 
Veronica: Yes. 
Female Lawyer: And how would you summarize the company's reaction when they found out that the women who used this product were savagely attacked by insects? 
Veronica: Ouch. 
Female Lawyer: Will you elaborate on that, please?
Veronica: No. 
Female Lawyer: Can you describe your job? 
Veronica: Yes. 
Female Lawyer: How would you describe your job? 
Veronica: Cleverly

Anyways, I digress.

In normal life when you are trying to explain science to your friends or family and they say something back that shows that they understood the gist of what you said, then you agree that they are correct. Close enough, right? That can never be the case in the courtroom, because if you agree to something as "close enough," then you will immediately have to backtrack with the follow-up questions, because you've essentially agreed to something that wasn't accurate in the first place.

And this was our issue at that particular moment. What he was saying was indeed "close enough," but it wasn't quite right.

Part of the problem is that scientists and lawyers speak different languages. Truly. It's like American English versus British English. It's all English, but if a Brit asks for a fag in the US...well, you see the problem. There is a communication issue. Our problem at that moment was that one phenomenon was actually first pass metabolism and not elimination. Yes, it's "eliminated" from the body, but it's not exactly what we're talking about when we discuss elimination rates. He was frustrated that I wouldn't agree, and I was frustrated that he was just repeating the same questions.

The especially frustrating thing about this situation (that I and others have been in many, many times) is that it can all be cleared up by one word: "Why?" If he had simply asked "Why is that not the same thing?" I could have launched into a description that may have clarified the situation and made clear to him that I was not trying to avoid his questioning, but that we had a difference of terms.

I don't know why that question is never asked. Perhaps it's because attorneys are used to factual witnesses or perhaps they simply don't want to ask the question when they don't know the answer. This is actually why direct testimony tends to be easier. They ask open ended questions and essentially allow you to drive the bus, since they know what your testimony will be. Opposing counsel wants to keep your answers as short as possible to avoid you driving the bus in a direction they don't want to go. The result though is that you argue over minutia and terms as opposed to substance.

I actually have an answer to this. Ready?

Depose the expert.

Yeah, that's it. If you depose the expert you will have some idea of what their testimony will be and you won't be afraid of the "whys." It sounds obvious. It is obvious! Yet, though the cases I have provided testimony in number in the thousands, the number of times I've been deposed only number in the dozens. I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps their clients don't want to increase the billable hours. Perhaps the science is intimidating or maybe they think there is no point because the expert will provide testimony like my example above. Perhaps my attorney friends can elucidate.

A good expert witness will seek to clarify not obfuscate. As I've said before, the expert witness is speaking for the science. They should be making sure that the attorneys, judge and jury all understand what the science means. Having disagreements simply because one party is speaking British English and the other is speaking American English is counterproductive. Ask why. If you're concerned about the expert driving the bus then ask the why's during deposition. The witness may not be trying to be difficult.

There are many words where this language barrier appears. In many cases, myself and my science colleagues have become accustomed to the legal definition of the word and simply agree if it is being used in a legal context. There are many words where the communities have different definitions, but one of the most common words tends to be "accurate." It is a given that when scientists use the word accurate, that they mean within the accepted uncertainty for that test. When lawyers use the word accurate they mean that the value is exactly (to whatever decimal place it is) the number. Part of the language barrier comes in because either party doesn't realize that there is a language barrier.

Perhaps a translation dictionary would be helpful, but until that dictionary is written, it's probably just a good idea to not be afraid to ask the questions.

The CSI effect

I've recently gotten into the show Dexter. Yeah, I'm years behind the curve, but in getting into the show I'm breaking one of my tv watching rules. You see Dexter is a forensic scientist.

Of course he's also a serial killer but that's besides the point.

Now as a forensic scientist myself you may wonder why I would avoid watching tv shows that feature my occupation. Well, I'll tell you. I watch TV for entertainment, as a relaxing end to the day. Watching forensic shows on TV are not relaxing because I spend most of my time scoffing or variously yelling at the screen.

This quote really sums it up. "If you really portrayed what crime scene investigators do," said Jay Siegel, a professor of forensic science at Michigan State University, "the show would die after three episodes because it would be so boring." Yup, forensics in the real world is boring.

On shows like CSI the people involved seem to do everything in the case. They investigate the scene, they do all the laboratory testing in the blink of an eye, arrest the suspects and practically argue the cases in court. Of course, this whole time they are only working on one case at a time. In the real world, forensic scientists may actually not know much about the case they have in their hands. It's a number. It's one of many that have to be processed.

I found that when asked about cases I was involved in on the laboratory side of things, people were often surprised how little I knew about the details of the case. All I focused on was the sample number and what the sample was to be tested for. That's typical. There is simply no time to be that heavily involved in all aspects of the case, but it makes for good TV if you could be.

Beyond the unrealistic expectation of how deeply involved forensic scientists are in a case there is a deeper problem with shows like CSI. CSI shows laboratory instrumentation as definitive and more universal than it actually is. The scientist simply places a drop of blood in a high tech piece of equipment and you suddenly have every drug the person was on, the full DNA spectrum and oh, here's a picture and their criminal record! Let's get 'em!

In the real world, there are a variety of methods, a variety of instrumentation and all have their limitations.

I often encountered officers or attorneys who didn't understand why we couldn't simply check the blood for everything present. How do you explain that some drugs are basic, some are acidic and they require different different extractions, different methods, a lot of time and oh yeah, hope you don't run out of blood; when CSI has shown them how easy it is? I've encountered jurors who expected the blood alcohol sample to be tested for DNA. How do explain it's not necessary and a huge waste of resources when CSI shows them that it's easy and is done in every case?

There are some good things about shows like CSI. Jurors do have some idea of what forensics is so the evidence can be explained with perhaps less detail then if they had never heard of it. And of course, it gets generations of new forensic scientists coming on board who hopefully aren't disappointed with the realities of the work.

Courts have actually started studying the "CSI effect" and so far the results are undecided. Hopefully people can realize and remember that these shows are fiction. Just as cop shows don't show the officers driving around aimlessly on a slow day, so too do forensic shows not show scientists fighting with their machines, working their way through a backlog of nameless samples or watching the clock for quitting time. Neither make good TV.

DUI by Vanilla Extract

Some people seem to believe that as long as the alcohol doesn't come from the standard beer, wine or liquor, that it somehow doesn't count. They try to blame the cough syrup or NyQuil for the breath test. Now the problem with that logic is that the alcohol in Nyquil is the same, chemically speaking, as the alcohol in a drink. It's all ethanol. It's all the same stuff. Whether you sat down and had a six pack or chugged a bottle of NyQuil, the impairment is the same and is addressed by the same law. (Things get twitchy with rubbing alcohol since that is not the same alcohol that is addressed by most DUI laws.)

This is the first time I've ever seen DUI by vanilla extract though. The woman in question was found slumped over the wheel with partially empty vanilla extract bottles that she had been mixing with coke. That sounds vastly more appealing than drinking rubbing alcohol, but when you consider that a cookie recipe require one teaspoon of vanilla and she was drinking it by the ounce...maybe not so appealing anymore. The woman in question didn't take a test so the rest is all speculation, but an interesting academic exercise none-the-less.

The vanilla extract in the car was 35% alcohol by volume and the woman purchased two eight ounce bottles. Both were partially empty according to the officer, but we don't now how much was missing. So how high could you get off of vanilla? Let's assume the woman in question was 150 pounds. For each ounce of vanilla she would gain a 0.020 blood alcohol concentration. Without elimination she could reach 0.160 on each bottle of vanilla extract. Of course the longer she drank, the lower the result would be because she would be eliminating alcohol at the same time.

Either way, could you get yourself intoxicated off of vanilla extract? YES. Would you want to? That is a very different question.