3.Christensen+%26+Crowder+%282009%29

Forensic anthropologists must develop and adhere to professional standards due to issues of professional standards and error rates being addressed in courts.
A new interest in critically assessing techniques used in forensic anthropology has arisen, particularly regarding validation, error rates, and professional standards.
The formation of a Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology (SWGANTH) aims to encourage discourse and develop consensus guidelines.
The paper emphasizes that enhancing research and methodologies to meet higher standards is crucial for quality and consistency in forensic anthropology.

The U.S. Supreme Court established standards for expert testimony through cases: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, General Electric Co. v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael.
These rulings aim to ensure reliability and relevance of scientific or technical testimony admitted as evidence in court.
Since the Daubert ruling, forensic disciplines, including anthropology, are urged to re-evaluate techniques and the underlying scientific theories.

Forensic anthropology uniquely combines traditional scientific methodologies with observational methods, which may complicate validation.
No standardized guidelines currently exist specifically for forensic anthropological methods regarding recovery and analysis of remains.
While there are recognized laboratories like the Department of Defense's JPAC, ASCLD/LAB does not specifically acknowledge anthropology as an accreditable discipline.

SWGs are formed by experts in a scientific discipline to formulate and review examination protocols and validation processes.
These standards are increasingly recognized by courts, underscoring the need for forensic anthropology to commit to high-quality analyses.
The SWGANTH was created to draft and disseminate guidelines aiming for consistent quality in forensic anthropology practice.

Addressed issues of methodological soundness for scientific evidence and established guidelines for admissibility based on testing, error rates, standards, peer review, and general acceptance.
Judges act as gatekeepers to prevent unreliable evidence from influencing trials.

Clarified that expert testimony must not merely rely on subjective belief but should be based on demonstrated links between data and conclusions.
Established that appellate courts defer to trial courts unless there is an abuse of discretion.

Extended the Daubert standard beyond scientific testimony to include all expert testimony, reinforcing the need for flexibility in assessing admissibility criteria.
Judges must apply rigorous standards to all expert testimony, regardless of it being classified as scientific or technical.

The Daubert trilogy has influenced many forensic disciplines to reassess their methodologies.
A significant percentage of judges find the Daubert standard valuable, promoting more reliable expert evidence in court.

Objective to minimize error through rigorous quality assurance mechanisms, including method validation and professional standards.
Many anthropological methods currently lack quantifiable validation efforts, leading to concerns about their reliability.

The field must establish standards for empirical validation to assist researchers and courts.
Subjectivity inherent to anthropological methods necessitates careful evaluations of reliability, emphasizing that subjectivity doesn't equate to unreliability.

The implementation of best practice protocols and standards is crucial for improving the quality and reliability of forensic anthropology in court.
SWGANTH represents an effort to establish recognized guidelines in forensic anthropology, focusing on training, ethics, statistics, and documentation among other areas.

The field of forensic anthropology must improve validation and error estimation while standardizing methods to align with legal requirements.
The formation of SWGANTH should promote higher-quality practices and discourse among practitioners.