Page - 167 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

improved communication, and a mutual appreciation of both context and milieu. Solutions have therefore tended to be practical, and pragmatic, rather than theoretical, and epistemological. Thus the ‘contest and communication’ narrative is generally associated with the view that the forensic, and legal, fields operate from within discrete ‘silos’, and that the degree to which professionals become ‘silo-ed’ is exacerbated in an adversarial context.1 Such views - routinely expressed in the forensic-scientific field - are echoed by members of the judiciary, and the legal profession. Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, perceives just such a communication problem, and likens it to the challenge facing comparative lawyers, whom he commends for their success in unearthing common legal concepts. ‘It is now accepted that the work of comparative lawyers, whose discipline was based on finding differences, and the globalization of many legal concepts, particularly the rule of law as applicable to all governmental action and the right to a fair and open trial, have brought about a considerable narrowing of the differences.’ 2 It may be argued, in counterpoint, that the desire to mobilise commonly held concepts is based on an idealised conception of the underlying similarities between two heterogeneous disciplines, whose normative bases may be dissimilar, if not completely divergent. Indeed, data from an empirical study into the marketisation of forensic science in England and Wales3 provides only partial support for the contest and communication narrative, as advanced by Lawless, Kelty, and members of the Judiciary.4 The data (discussed below) reveals that scientific informants speak predominantly of processes of intra-disciplinary fragmentation and stratification, and external control, which do not necessarily equate to autonomy and isolation, or lend support to the assertion that enhanced communication would lead to greater interdisciplinary understanding. Further, the process of ‘siloing’ has both a descriptive, and a normatively prescriptive, dimension. Therefore, even if it does accurately describe the co-production of forensic-scientific knowledge claims, the degree of divergence may be so deep as to thwart mutual understanding and enhanced interdisciplinarity. Further, the presence of acute power assymetries and the instrumental uses of forensic science. – as evidenced by the research data – may render any such attempts impossible. 1 See Kelty, SF; Julian, R; and Ross, A. Dismantling the Justice Silos: avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits of information-sharing between forensic science, medicine and law. Forensic Science International ; Jul 10;230(1-3): pp.8-15. 2 Thomas, LCJ. 2015 The legal framework for more robust forensic science evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 20140258 at page 1. 3 Richmond, K (2018) Marketised Forensic DNA Profiling in England and Wales Doctoral Thesis (Law), University of Strathclyde 4 Lawless, C. (2010). A Curious Reconstruction? The Shaping of ‘Marketized’ Forensic Science. CARR Discussion Paper 63; Lawless, C. Policing Markets; the Contested Shaping of Neo-Liberal Forensic Science. British Journal of Criminology (2011) 51, 671-689; Kelty, SF; Julian, R; and Ross, A. Dismantling the Justice Silos: avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits of information-sharing between forensic science, medicine and law. Forensic Science International ; Jul 10;230(1-3): pp.8-15; Thomas, LCJ. 2015 The legal framework for more robust forensic science evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 20140258 at page 1. 167