As technology and scientific methodology evolve, concerns about good or valid science or flawed science also evolve. New methodologies and scientific processes must be carefully evaluated to prove validity. Some processes never attain their hype, some initially appear valid but evolving technology and science later disprove them, while other processes never existed and were simply a dramatic plot twist. It is difficult for the average person to tell the difference.
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, please review the following:
- From the text:
- Chapter 1: Forensic Science and Criminalistics
- Chapter 2: Crime Scene Processing and Analysis and Forensic Technologies
- The videos:
Scientific evidence must be evaluated by forensic experts through a peer review process, which the courts often rely on to determine validity of scientific methods. Similarly, you must carefully evaluate the validity of the material supporting your work. For this assignment, you must use at least three Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) in addition to the course text. You may also want to review the recommended resources, which may further support your work on this written assignment.
In your paper, address the following:
- Evaluate the evolution of forensic science.
- Identify examples of scientific methods that have been disproven.
- Explain the peer review process.
- Compare and contrast common perceptions to the realities of forensic science.
- Explain the CSI effect.
- Evaluate what impact the CSI effect has or does not have on the forensic field and the criminal justice system.
- Evaluate the impact of junk science, real or perceived, on the forensic field and criminal justice.
The Is All Good and True? paper