Retorts

Brickbat

I was most disappointed in your article Laboratory Sleuths [March] regarding forensic science in New Zealand, because of the thinness and the frequent inaccuracies of the material. The research seems quite incomplete.

Below are a few of the glaring inconsistencies:

DSIR scientists have virtually no input into document examination, the police having their own unit which deals with that subject.

The number of blood alcohol samples was 12,000 three years ago but, since the introduction of conclusive evidential breath testing devices, has dropped rapidly, a figure of 7,000 being closer to the present submission level.

Perhaps the most irritating aspect of the article was your coverage of DNA profiling. We regard ourselves as the leaders in the application of this technique to forensic science in New Zealand, yet this did not rate a mention. We operate DNA profiling facilities at all three of our main sites -- I believe the university input to be minor by comparison.

I hope that if you were to embark on an article such as this in the future, that you would contact us.

T. D. R. Manning, DSIR Chemistry

We did ask DSIR Chemistry for interviews when researching the story, but received no response.

As regards the glaring inconsistencies:

What was actually written was "Scientists from DSIR, universities and private organisations assist the police's Document Examination Section, Fingerprints Department and other sections dealing with evidence."

We don't feel that your interpretation is justified given the original context.

The numbers on blood alcohol samples came from DSIR material supplied to us by the Land Resources division.

It is difficult to cover the activities of every organisation, but it is gratifying to see so many which are aware of the importance and value of making their work known to the public.