Personal feelings and the expert witness

I've expressed the statement before of course that the role of the expert witness is to be objective and speak for the science, but no matter how often I've said that, I'm constantly encountering the attitude that it is a personal thing. As if feelings have some sort of place in science. Remember the "There's no crying in baseball!" it's the same thing, there's no emotion in science.

Compare evolution and creationism. Evolution is based on observations in nature, experiments carried out in the lab, and fossil evidence. Creationism is based on feelings. As a scientist I have to look at the evidence and see that the evidence for evolution far, far outweighs the "feelings" of creationism. I'm obviously not in the minority there and that's because that is what science is about.

When an experiment is carried out, the goal of a scientist and all scientific procedure is to disprove the theory, not to prove it. That's a huge distinction and one that is crucial to scientific understanding. Whether I want my theory to be true or not, doesn't matter. At least not to any credible scientist.

Most of my work involves DUI and let me tell you, my personal feelings play no part. Why? Because it's not my job. It's not my job to argue the case, it's not my job to make the decisions. I am not the fact finder. That is a wonderfully freeing thing and I'm not sure why people resist that. My only job is to explain the science and see if everything is working properly. If it is, I say so. If it isn't, I say so. How I "feel" doesn't matter.

Pointing out a problem is not a personal attack. It is the role of the scientist to look at the data and base your opinion on the data, not on what you want the outcome to be. And that's what I always strive to do. The only difference in being an expert witness is that you have to express it in layman's terms so that the non-science community can understand it and make their own decisions.

I've worked for both the prosecution and the defense. I've been thanked by parents who have lost a child to an impaired driver. I've seen people facing the loss of their pension over a mistake. It's not a simple thing.

Thankfully, it's not my job to have feelings about it and any "scientist" that puts their emotions before the data is no scientist at all. I'm human. I'm not cold. I do have feelings of course, but they don't matter. My job is to explain the science, and that's what I do.

Staying up to Date Part II: THC Potency and Drug Changes

Marijuana is the number one used drug in this country with the exception of alcohol, so it makes sense that for years studies have been done on it's effects on behavior, especially on driving abilities. I've attended numerous seminars and read many articles where low and high levels of THC concentration have been given to subjects so that these studies can be done. Great! We have low and high, so we're all set right?

Wrong!

Let's discuss: Looking at these studies the low dose of THC equates to 1.7% and the high THC equates to 3.5%. Ok, so far so good. So naturally our questions should go to how do these values compare to what is used in the real world? Well, let's see.

This September, the Journal of Forensic Sciences featured an article entitled "Potency Trends of Δ⁹-THC and Other Cannabinoids in Confiscated Cannabis Preparations from 1993 to 2008" which first appeared online in May of this year. This study was put together by the University of Mississippi which acts as the Potency Monitoring Program for NIDA. So, how do our studies with concentrations between 1.7% and 3.5% compare to what's out there?
 
Well...pretty dismally. It turns out that the average THC concentration of marijuana that has been confiscated between 1993 to 2008 has risen from 3.4% in 1993 to 8.8% in 2008. Hmm...


This is another example of why it is vital for those involved in forensics to keep up to date with the literature and the trends. An opinion given in a case using the studies for THC concentrations of 1.7% or 3.5% would be woefully inaccurate when what was smoked was closer to 9%. That is a substantial increase and one that makes a substantial difference in interpretation. It also points to why it is important that theses studies continue and continue to be funded. 

Studies are only as good as their applicability to the real-world situation.

This past week I attended the annual meeting of the Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists which was held in conjunction with the New England Division of the International Association for Identification. It was a wonderful conference with many great people and presentations. One of which was presented by Vadim Astrakhan from the DEA in New York who made a comment about the good ole days when Ecstasy contained MDMA and it's variants. Now he is finding Ecstasy frequently that contains no MDMA at all, but does contain BZP or TFMPP. His presentation was on detecting these compounds since they co-elute, but whether your interest is in testing for the drug or discussing it's effects it's important to know what is actually out there.

The other trend in presentations was the "Spice Trade" which features plant material coated with synthetic marijuana and is sold legally. The general theme of these presentations was the concept of chasing a moving target. When there are 400 different variations of the compound where do you look? Some states are contemplating banning one or two of the compounds. How effective is that when the dealers can merely switch to one of the other 400? The appearance of spice has changed over time as well. How do you keep officers informed for what to look for now?


Keeping up to date is vital for anyone involved in forensics. Science is not static! It is ever changing and to be good at your job you have to keep up. Any state or county that under-funds their forensic section should think on that.

Staying up to Date Part I: What is a Standard Drink now?

Recently I've realized that my entire primary school education has been proven wrong. Christopher Columbus did not discover America. Pluto is not a planet. You don't really use cursive. Brontosaurus is Brachiosaurus or Apatosaurus as they're calling it now and apparently the Triceratops was just the juvenile form of another dinosaur. Hmmm... Things change.

It's a good thing to remember especially as scientists whose job it is to stay up on the latest info. There used to be an old saying that is finally falling by the wayside. The saying that people eliminate one drink an hour. That hasn't been true for a long time for several reasons:

One: People gain different alcohol concentrations from the same drink based on gender and body type and Two: The alcohol concentration of drinks has risen.

In the "olden days" when the Brontosaurus roamed the earth and gas was 99 cents a gallon, regular beer was 4% alcohol. In the slightly more modern days when Apatosaurus roamed the Earth and gas was $4.50 a gallon, regular beer was 5% alcohol. That extra percentage makes a difference!

Now in the current days where some random dinosaurs may or may not roam the Earth and gas is around $2.80 a gallon at recent glance we need to re-evaluate what we are using for a standard beer. Budweiser advertises at 5% beer. Is that "standard?" I live in Vermont where micro brews reign supreme. When the typical micro brew is at least 6% and often more, should I be using a 5% beer as my standard drink? A quick look at Rock Art beers show 25 different brews where half of them are at least 8% alcohol and rise up to 10% alcohol. This means that a typical Rock Art is equal to nearly two Budweisers. That's using 12 ounce servings. If we start talking pints or the 20-24 ouncers that are starting to be served we're talking a substantial difference.

That's simply talking beer. You all know my opinion on Four Loko, the insanity of all alcohol beverages. Expert witnesses need to be aware of what's out there. We must stay on top of what is being sold and what is happening to the alcohol concentration of common beverages.

A few years ago, if  I were presented with a test of 0.160 and asked if it were possible for a person to reach that point on two drinks consumed a couple of hours ago as stated in a processing form, I would have answered in the negative. No way could a person do that. Now however with the presence of Four Loko and the trend of micro brews to reach 10% alcohol, the answer would not be so simple. Yeah, it's possible. Depending on what they were drinking, it may even be likely.

The problem we will be seeing is that the general public is not aware of the change either. I've already posted about the hospitalizations of people drinking Four Loko, but on the more common front defendants will easily be over an 0.08 and not understand how it happened. I've had to point out to my own husband, "That equals two!"

Keeping all of this in mind, what is a Vermont standard drink? Should we base the "standard" drink on region or should we get rid of it all together? I think that's best left up to a case by case basis, but expert witnesses should spend more time investigating what it is that is actually being consumed. If you have the name of the beer, it's very easy to find the alcohol concentration and well worth the extra couple of minutes for the greatly increased accuracy of your calculation.