Forensic Science International 288 (2018) 1–9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint

Review Article

The international development of forensic science standards — A

review
Linzi Wilson-Wilde
National Institute of Forensic Science, Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency, L6, T3, WTC, 637 Flinders Street, Melbourne, VIC 3008, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 19 October 2017 Standards establish specifications and procedures designed to ensure products, services and systems are
Received in revised form 2 March 2018 safe, reliable and consistently perform as intended. Standards can be used in the accreditation of forensic
Accepted 7 April 2018 laboratories or facilities and in the certification of products and services. In recent years there have been
Available online 16 April 2018 various international activities aiming at developing forensic science standards and guidelines. The most
significant initiative currently underway within the global forensic community is the development of
Keywords: International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards. This paper reviews the main bodies
Forensic Science working on standards for forensic science, the processes used and the implications for accreditation. This
ISO
paper specifically discusses the work of ISO Technical Committee TC272, the future TC272 work program
Standards
for the development of forensic science standards and associated timelines. Also discussed, are the
TC272
Standards development lessons learnt to date in navigating the complex environment of multi-country stakeholder deliberations
Accreditation in standards development.
Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Accreditation and certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Standards development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Country standards development organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Regional standards development organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. ISO Committee TC272 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Conflict of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Introduction works to the expected level and will provide the anticipated
outcome.
Documented standards are an important aspect of life in a The term standard is often used to describe a number of
modern society. They are aimed at providing confidence to the different types of documents, such as those developed by
users of products and services; that those products and services government recognized Standards Development Organizations
are delivered to a particular level of quality [1]. By using a (SDOs), education and training standards, or documents that
product or service, delivered in accordance to a standard, the articulate agreed specifications and are developed by an agency,
users can have confidence that the product or service is reliable, or group of agencies. Here we focus on standards developed
through a formal process via a recognized SDO.
SDO standards are documents that specify the quality require-
E-mail address: linzi.wilson-wilde.nifs@anzpaa.org.au (L. Wilson-Wilde). ments for a product or service and in doing so provide guidance to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.009
0379-0738/Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/).
2 L. Wilson-Wilde / Forensic Science International 288 (2018) 1–9
the supplier in how to deliver the product or service to that
benchmark [1]. Standards are practical and do not set aspirational
targets; they are not meant to articulate a gold standard, or a
minimum standard, but rather a benchmark that balances
community expectations against what can realistically be deliv-
ered (taking into account technology, market forces, safety etc.).
Standards also reinforce a common language that defines quality
and safety criteria, representing a peer-recognised approach to
service delivery at a particular point in time. In order to keep pace
with changes to community expectations, developments in
technology and market place dynamics, standards are reviewed
regularly; at least every five years for an international standard [2].
In a forensic context, standards do not replace the forensic
facility’s procedure documents, methods or policies. Practitioners
continue to determine the appropriate method to apply to a
particular process. As standards are voluntary documents, devel-
oped by consensus and applied by choice (unless their use is
mandated by government or written into a contract), acceptance is
contingent upon ‘ownership’ by a broad base of stakeholders and
experts (local, state, federal/national/country agencies and advi-
sory bodies, academia, and industry).
Traditionally, the forensic industry has remained largely
unregulated by governments, with a reliance on voluntary
standards and limited public investment in developing forensic-
specific standards. Standards organizations have typically relied on
interest groups to propose new standards, with a focus on self-
financing by industry stakeholders. However, over the past decade
there has been a strong call internationally for the development of
relevant quality forensic standards [3].
While there is a conscious and genuine drive to establish, where
possible, internationally applicable and authoritative standards for
forensic science, the current picture at the global, regional, or
national level is relatively complex. This is in terms of the activities
of standard-producing bodies, and the relationships between such
bodies and their outputs. This paper provides a review of the
current activities in the development of forensic-specific standards
and makes comment on the future direction.
2. Accreditation and certification
Standards can be applied through self-regulation, certification
or accreditation. Self-regulation relies on self-assessment and
attestation. There is often a confusion regarding the difference
between accreditation and certification. Certification refers to the
provision by an independent body of a written assurance (a
certificate) that the product, service or system in question meets
specific requirements [4]. This is conducted using the require-
ments detailed in management-based standards [5]. Accreditation
refers to the formal recognition by an independent body (generally
known as an accreditation body), using technical experts that a
facility operates according to international standards [4]. This is
also called conformity assessment and is conducted using
competency-based standards [5]. Therefore, certification refers
to an assessment of a product, service, or system against set
requirements, whereas accreditation refers to the assessment of
competence, of a body or agency, based on technical knowledge,
against set requirements. Certification can also apply to a person.
Accreditation and certification are both undertaken using third-
party bodies, which are in turn accredited to perform this service.
Many accreditation bodies are signatories to the International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) [6]. ILAC is the
international organization for accreditation bodies operating in
accordance with ISO/IEC 17011:2004 Conformity assessment —
General requirements for bodies providing assessment and
accreditation of conformity assessment bodies and supplementary
requirements documents [7]. ILAC is involved in the accreditation
of conformity assessment bodies under an international, multilat-
eral Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) [8], also called the
ILAC Arrangement. Conformity assessment is conducted on four
different types of laboratories/facilities as follows:
 Testing laboratories using ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General
Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration
Laboratories [9]. This standard includes generic requirements
that are applicable to any type of testing laboratory, with an
emphasis on the use of validated methodology. It does not
specify or seek to standardize the methodology followed within
a particular sector, such as the specific requirements for
sampling and testing in a forensic facility or at the crime scene.
 Calibration laboratories using ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General
Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration
Laboratories [9].
 Medical testing laboratories using ISO/IEC 15189:2012 Medical
laboratories — Requirements for quality and competence [10].
This standard is used by medical laboratories to develop their
quality management systems.
 Inspection bodies using ISO/IEC 17020:2017 Conformity Assess-
ment — Requirements for the Operation of Various Types of
Bodies Performing Inspection [11], This standard establishes
generic criteria for inspection bodies in the examination of
‘materials, products, installations, plant, processes, work proce-
dures or services’ to provide certification. Although this standard
has also been applied to crime scene examination laboratories, it
does not include specific requirements for sampling and testing
in a forensic facility or at the crime scene.
The competency-based standards above are developed by the
ISO Committee on COnformity ASsessment (CASCO) [12]. In a
forensic context, these standards are used to accredit the
organization as a whole and confirm that the organization is
competent to produce a reliable product or service [5]. CASCO
limits the number of competency-based standards that are
developed and the ILAC MRA limits accreditation to the three
standards listed above [8].
Other standards that may be relevant are management-based
standards, which are used for auditing/certification of products
and services as follows:
 ISO/IEC 9001:2015 Quality management systems — Require-
ments [13].
 ISO/IEC 14001, Environmental management systems — Require-
ments with guidance for use [14].
Management-based standards do not certify the organisation as
a whole, but rather an aspect of the organisation, such as the
management system [5].
In a forensic context, accreditation to one of the three ILAC
prescribed ISO competency-based standards covers the generic
aspects of a facility, including management, training and general
processes. They do not give specific guidance to any particular
forensic discipline and do not provide any specific guidance for
field or medical applications. Therefore, in 2007, ILAC developed an
additional document that approaches the forensic science process
as a whole, and provides common guidance in areas where
activities overlap, or where insufficient instruction is provided
(such as for field-based testing). The resulting document, ILAC
G19:08/2014 Modules in Forensic Science Process [15], provides
guidance for laboratories, scene of crime investigation units and
other entities involved in examination and testing in the forensic
science process.
In addition, national accreditation bodies have produced
further guidance documents for the application of the ISO
 L. Wilson-Wilde / Forensic Science International 288 (2018) 1–9
competency-based standards [16–20]. Specific requirements for a
discipline or process, not covered in the ISO competency-based
standards, can therefore be covered within these documents,
providing further guidance. These can then be applied in the
accreditation process, and picked up within the ‘scope’ of
accreditation to a competency-based standard and supplement
the facility’s quality assurance framework.
Accreditation of forensic laboratories in the USA is conducted
mainly by the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB),
which in 2016 merged the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) into its
program [21]. The program also accredits forensic facilities outside
the USA, including facilities in Mexico, Bangladesh, Caymen
Islands, Bermuda, Brazil, Oman, Algeria, New Zealand, Canada
Malaysia, and Singapore [22]. The American Association for
Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is another major agency offering
forensic accreditation [23,24] and the National Association of
Medical Examiners (NAME) provides voluntary accreditation for
Medical Examiner’s offices [25]. In Europe, accreditation is covered
under the 2009 European Union Act under the EU Treaty requiring
forensic service providers to be accredited [26,27]. In the United
Kingdom, accreditation is conducted by the United Kingdom
Accreditation Service (UKAS) [28] and in Australia accreditation is
conducted by the National Association of Testing Authorities
(NATA) [29].
The type of accreditation and who conducts that accreditation
for a forensic facility will depend on the services and disciplines
offered, coupled to what accreditation options are available.
Facilities will need to adopt competency-based standards to be
accredited to and the accreditation agency to provide the
assessment. Different accreditation agencies may define different
additional requirements for accreditation and specialise in certain
discipline types, such as field-based, laboratory-based, or medical-
based.
Certification can also be performed by third parties to assess the
competence of a person. The relevant standard is ISO/IEC
17024:2012, Conformity assessment — General requirements for
bodies operating certification of persons [30]. The relationship
between the facility, methods and practitioners and the quality
assurance framework, including accreditation, certification and
standards is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Relationship between the forensic environment and the quality framework,
outlining the role of standards. Adapted from Brandi and Wilson-Wilde [26].
3
3. Standards development
Within any country, technical involvement in the development
of a standard is the responsibility of the SDO. All SDOs are
themselves accredited for the development work and representa-
tion of the country in the international standards development
process.
In Australia, the Standards Development and Accreditation
Committee (SDAC) accredits SDOs (for example, industry associ-
ations) to develop Australian standards and also to represent
national interests in international standard development [31].
Many international standards development committees make
use of subcommittees (SCs) and working groups (WGs) for various
tasks, to reduce delays and to prepare drafts on given subjects,
ready for committee discussion and voting. Although members of
WGs do not formally represent national interests, the relevant SDO
is expected to ensure that the views of members of WGs are in
harmony with any established national committee position.
The imperative of developing and adopting international
standards is also formally stated. The World Trade Organization
(WTO) through the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement
[32] obliges signatory countries not to raise non-tariff barriers to
trade, with specific provisions relating to standards. Article 2.4
notes that where technical regulations are required, the member
country shall use international standards that exist, barring
circumstances where fundamental climatic/geographical factors
or technological impediments exist [32]. The policy of many
national standards bodies is to base their standards on interna-
tional standards to the maximum extent feasible, and to use the
WTO TBT Agreement as a benchmark.
There are many benefits for active participation in international
standardization, including [26,33–34]:
 Consistency of practice within and between laboratories/
facilities across countries and sectors.
 International standards generally reflect the best global experi-
ence of industry and regulators.
 Facilitating participation in international certification schemes.
 Ensuring a country’s interests are voiced in the development of
international standards.
 Ensuring a country’s obligations to the WTO are met.
 Increasing professional mobility by defining standards of quality
for all forensic practitioners.
 Nurturing judicial and societal confidence in forensic facility
output due to global applicability.
It is important to note that accreditation to standards is not
solely to give guidance to the facility, it is also for the users or
purchasers of the product or service. In a forensic context this is
law enforcement and the judiciary. When a facility is accredited, it
provides confidence to law enforcement and the justice system
that that forensic services provided are produced to an appropriate
level of quality. This specified level of quality can be equated to the
purchase of a bicycle helmet for a child. Which one is more likely to
provide the purchaser with more confidence — the helmet
produced to no standard, or the one independently accredited
as manufactured in accordance with an international standard?
Accreditation/certification to a standard provides confidence to the
purchaser of the bike helmet, that the helmet is fit for purpose. The
same can be said for law enforcement and the justice system as the
users of forensic services.
3.1. Country standards development organizations
SDOs can be country based or regional. The American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM International) [35] is the main
4 L. Wilson-Wilde / Forensic Science International 288 (2018) 1–9
American SDO and has published over 12,000 ASTM International
standards. ASTM International has over 140 technical committees
including the Forensic Standards Committee — E-30 [36].
Committee E-30, created in 1970 and meeting annually, has
approximately 685 members and seven subcommittees. It has
published approximately 64 standards. The standards are relative-
ly short, covering various scientific methodologies as follows [36]:
 E30.01 – Criminalistics – 38 standards and five proposed new
standards.
 E30.11 – Interdisciplinary – seven active standards and two
proposed new standards.
 E30.12 – Digital and Multimedia Evidence – seven active
standards and four proposed new standards.
 E30.90 – Executive – eight active standards and no proposed new
standards.
 E30.92 – Terminology – one active standard and one proposed
new standard.
Two further E-30 subcommittees do not have any active or
proposed standards. These are support committees: E30.93 –
Awards and E30.94 – Liaison and therefore do not create standards
[36].
The United States has a long history of working towards
standardized procedures and guidelines. Since 1988 the Federal
Bureau of Investigation Laboratory has supported Technical (and
later Scientific) Working Groups (TWGs/SWGs) [37]. There were 21
SWGs in existence in 2014; however, it is thought that many of
these will transition into the Organization of Scientific Area
Committees (OSACs) program administered by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [37–39]. The OSACs
are developing forensic science consensus documents [37]. These
documents will promote standardization by detailing minimum
requirements, best practices and standard protocols. Butler 2015
provides a good overview of the work being undertaken in the USA,
including the SWGs and OSACs [39]. The documents produced by
OSAC are voluntary and OSAC approved standards are placed on a
public registry. As at the time of writing, there are currently 8
documents listed [38]. OSAC have developed a catalogue of
external standards and guidelines produced by various organ-
isations around the world and this database is available on their
website [38]. It is important to note that the SWGs and OSACs are
not government recognised SDOs, so in order to convert OSAC
documents to formal standards, OSAC will need to partner with an
SDO [39]. The OSAC framework is currently being reviewed [37,39]
and the model is anticipated to be adapted.
The British Standards Institution (BSI), established in 1901,
was the world’s first national standards body [40]. BSI has
published over 50,000 standards and has approximately 1200
committees [40]. In 2012 BSI published a Publically Available
Specification (PAS), PAS 377:2012–Specification for consumables
used in the collection, preservation and processing of material for
forensic analysis. Requirements for product, manufacturing and
forensic kit assembly. [41]. The Forensic Science Regulator [42]
has also published a Codes of Practice and Conduct for forensic
science providers and practitioners in the Criminal Justice
System. [18]. The Codes of Practice and Conduct have a series
of appendices and guidance documents detailing specific require-
ments for quality forensic science service provision. There are
currently eight appendices and nine guidance documents
attached to the Codes of Practice and Conduct [42]. Whilst these
are guidance documents and not standards, accreditation through
UKAS meets the requirements as detailed in the Codes of Practice
and Conduct [28].
Australia has developed a number of forensic science standards
through Standards Australia and committee CH041 – Forensic
Analysis [26,33–34]. To date seven standards have been published
as follows [33]:
 AS 5239 – 2011 – Examination of ignitable liquids in fire debris
 AS 5388.1 – 2012 – Forensic analysis – Recognition, recording,
recovery, transport and storage of material
 AS 5388.2 – 2012 – Forensic analysis – Analysis and examination
of material
 AS 5388.3 – 2013 – Forensic analysis – Interpretation
 AS 5388.4 – 2013 – Forensic analysis – Reporting
 AS 5483 – 2012 – Minimizing the risk of contamination in
products used to collect and analyse biological material for
forensic DNA purposes. This standard is currently still active to
allow for manufacturers to transfer over to AS ISO 18385, after
which it will be removed.
 AS ISO 18385:2017–Minimizing the risk of human DNA
contamination in products used to collect, store and analyse
biological material for forensic purposes
The Australian standard AS 5483 and the AS 5388 series have
been used as the basis for developing ISO standards.
3.2. Regional standards development organizations
There are two main regional standards development areas:
Europe and Globally. In Europe there are three officially recognized
standardization organizations [43]:
1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN).
2. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
(CENELEC).
3. European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
From a global perspective there are two main SDO bodies [1]:
1. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
2. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
ISO is the largest regional SDO and globally the most significant
for forensic science standards development, whilst CEN is the main
European SDO developing forensic standards. CEN involves 34
European countries [43] and is located in Belgium. CEN will not
develop conflicting or similar standards to ISO and vice versa [44].
In CEN the Forensic Standards Committee – CEN/TC419 Project
Committee – Forensic science services, is involved in developing
forensic standards [45]. TC419 was established in May 2012 in
order to work on European standards for forensic science services.
In 2017 TC 419 transferred all of its work on developing a set of
standards that define procedures for forensic science processes, to
ISO, using the Vienna Agreement [44].
CEN standards become a European Standard once published
and CEN members are obliged to withdraw any pre-existing
standards that are in conflict [46]. However, ISO members have
the option to adopt and publish international ISO standards and
may maintain country standards if they determine they are more
applicable [2]; this is a significant distinction between the CEN
and ISO environments. European countries may be members of
both CEN and ISO. The advantage of CEN membership is that
standards can be developed to address specific European regional
issues.
In recent years some European regional standards produced
by CEN and CENELEC, in the absence of an international
standard, have been so widely used internationally that they
have become recognised as de facto international standards.
Although many SDOs will only adopt standards that are
compatible with country practices and methodology, an issue
 L. Wilson-Wilde / Forensic Science International 288 (2018) 1–9
arises when regional or national standards, in the absence of
international standards, become de facto standards in the view
of the judiciary.
4. International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
ISO, located in Switzerland, has published over 21,500
standards and is the largest International regional standards
body, made up of 162 countries [1,47]. ISO develops joint
standards with IEC. ISO uses Technical and Project Committees
in the development of standards. A Technical Committee (TC) is a
permanent committee that can be tasked with the development
of a standard. A Project Committee (PC) is created for the
development of one specific standard, after which it is
disbanded [2].
ISO member countries can sign up to be a ‘P’ or ‘O’ member of a
PC or TC Committee developing Standard(s). Participating (P)
members are voting members who create a mirror committee
within their own country SDO. Observing (O) members can attend
meetings and make comments, but do not have a vote [2].
The key principles for the ISO standard development process
are that the standards should respond to a need in the market,
be based on global expert opinion, be developed through a
multi-stakeholder process and be based on consensus. Decisions
are reached by consensus according to a formula. Within ISO, a
decision is passed when two-thirds of the participating
member countries who submit a vote are in the affirmative
and no more than one-quarter of total possible votes are in the
negative [2].
Compliance with the international standards of ISO and IEC
remain strictly voluntary (only when standards are cited by
regulators do they become mandatory requirements). Standards
will be used by industry, SDOs, and regulatory agencies only if they
meet the needs of the countries involved.
There are strict ISO rules for the development of standards that
all member countries must adhere to and are detailed in the ISO
Directives Part 1 and 2 [2,48]. From a forensic perspective, the
challenge is not to develop standards that are too prescriptive with
respect to methodology, recognizing existing accepted practice,
but still define expectations of reliability and consistency of results.
It is also important to have broad stakeholder engagement to
ensure applicability and broad community acceptance of the
published standards.
The ISO process itself follows the following six stages as
outlined in the ISO Directives Part 2 [48]: proposal, preparatory,
committee, enquiry, approval and publication stages. These are
linked to standard draft development stages, which are considered
by the Working Groups, Technical/Project Committee and ISO
member countries as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Illustration of the ISO standards development process [48].
5
5. ISO Committee TC272
ISO TC272 began as a Project Committee in April 2013. The
Project Committee was responsible for developing published
standard: ISO/IEC 18385:2016 Minimizing the risk of human DNA
contamination in products used to collect, store and analyze
biological material for forensic purposes — Requirements [49]. In
December 2015, the committee converted to a Technical Commit-
tee to develop a broader range of forensic standards. The scope of
TC272 is defined as “Standardization and guidance in the field of
Forensic Science” [50]. This includes the development of standards
that pertain to laboratory and field-based forensic science
techniques and methodology in broad general areas such as the
detection and collection of physical evidence, the subsequent
analysis and interpretation of the evidence, and the reporting of
results and findings [50]. In addition, TC272 develops standards
targeted at manufacturers of forensic equipment and consumables.
As at the time of writing, TC272 has 23 participating and 18
observing country members [50] (see Fig. 3. and Table 1 for
details).
ISO TC272 has a liaison arrangement, where members from
other committees or organizations can participate in the standards
development process [2]. The two current TC272 committee
liaisons are with ILAC and the International Committee of the Red
Cross. TC272 has five working groups as follows: vocabulary,
collection, products, analysis and interpretation and reporting.
Fig. 4 illustrates the committee structure and the standards that
have or are being developed by each of the working groups.
The committee has the following approved standards currently
in development:
 ISO/FDIS 21043.1 Forensic Sciences — Terms, definitions and
framework [51], currently at Approval Stage 50.
 ISO/FDIS 21043.2 Forensic Sciences — Recognition, recording,
recovering, transport and storage of material [52], currently at
Approval Stage 50.
 ISO/WD 21043.3 Forensic Sciences — Analysis and examination
of material [53], currently at Preparatory Stage 20.
 ISO/WD 21043.4 Forensic Sciences — Interpretation [54],
currently at Preparatory Stage 20.
 ISO/WD 21043.5 Forensic Sciences — Reporting [55], currently at
Preparatory Stage 20.
 ISO/WD 20964 — Specification for consumables used in the
collection, preservation and processing of material for forensic
analysis — Requirements for product [56], currently at Prepara-
tory Stage 20.
The Committee’s Strategic Business Plan can be found on the
ISO website [57]. It is hoped that the standards currently in
6 L. Wilson-Wilde / Forensic Science International 288 (2018) 1–9

Fig. 3. World Map outlining the locations and type of TC272 members. [50].

Table 1
2. Subcommittee ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 37 Biometrics [62] is developing
Member countries to TC272 as at September 2017 [50]. the following standard:
 ISO/IEC AWI 22842.1 Information technology – Biometric
Participating member countries Observing member countries
performance testing and reporting – Part 1: Methodology and
Australia Argentina tools for the validation biometric methods for forensic
Austria Bulgaria
evaluation and identification application. The standard is
Belgium China
Canada Cyprus currently under development, at Preparatory Stage 20 [63].
Denmark Czech Republic 3. Subcommittee ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 40 IT Service Management and
Egypt Finland IT Governance [64] has published the following standard:
France Iran, Islamic Republic of
 ISO/IEC 30121:2015 Preview. Information technology —
Germany Korea, Republic of
Hungary Malaysia
Governance of digital forensic risk framework [65].
Italy Malta
Japan Mongolia Additionally, ISO TC 106/SC 3 Terminology [66] is developing
Mexico Philippines the following standard relevant to forensic science:
Netherlands Portugal
New Zealand Romania
Poland Slovakia  ISO/CD 20888. Dentistry — Forensic dental data set. The standard
Russian Federation Thailand is currently under development, at Committee Stage 30 [67].
Serbia Uganda
Singapore United Arab Emirates
All of the above forensic specific standards may be used as
Spain
Sweden
guidance by law enforcement and forensic scientists, however,
Switzerland they are not equivalent to competency-based standards and cannot
United Kingdom be used as substitutes for conformity assessment. They can
United States however be utilised within a quality framework, or as previously
discussed, independently assessed in third party accreditation
within the scope of accreditation to a competency-based standard.
There are numerous lessons that can be learnt from the
development at the Preparatory Stage, will be completed by the experiences of ISO TC272 to date. Agreement to terminology is vital
end of 2020. to the application of the standards and takes significant discussion,
In addition to the standards being developed by TC272, there revision and compromise. Standard development always takes
are a number of other ISO committees and standards relevant to longer than first thought, is more complicated than anticipated and
forensic science. Joint ISO/IEC Technical Committee 1 (JTC1) [58] issues are always raised that were not considered by the drafting
has three subcommittees developing standards relevant to forensic committee and during each round of commenting. This demon-
science. strates the importance of the cycles of member country consider-
ation at the different ISO stages. However, sometimes a lack of
1. Subcommittee ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27 IT Security Techniques [59] understanding of how the commenting process works is experi-
has developed two standards relevant to digital forensics: enced. Member countries must provide a suggestion for a change
 ISO/IEC 27042: 2015. Information Technology – Security for the Committee to consider. This is not always done and instead
Techniques – Guidelines for the Analysis and Interpretation an issue is raised, with no suggested alternative. This leaves the
of Digital Evidence [60]. Committee to try and reach a solution in the committee plenary,
 ISO/IEC 27037: 2012. Information Technology – Security with hundreds of comments to resolve, coupled with language
Techniques – Guidelines for Identification, Collection, Acqui- differences between some county members; it can be an almost
sition and Preservation of Digital Evidence [61]. impossible task. The Committee must often therefore reject the
 L. Wilson-Wilde / Forensic Science International 288 (2018) 1–9
Fig. 4. Governance structure of ISO TC272, highlighting the five Working Groups (dark grey) and the standards that have been developed (grey with lines), almost competed
(grey with dots) and are in the process of being developed (white).
comment based on there being no alternative offered. In these
cases, countries have the option to reconsider the comment and
resubmit with an alternative during the following commenting
period.
Occasionally, the comments received demonstrate a lack of
understanding of what a standard is. These comments suggest
either an aim for the standards to be a gold standard in order to
drive an unrealistic change in the short term, or minimum
standard so there is no change; both of these positions are
incorrect. This is because a standard is a benchmark that the
community can achieve at a particular point in time. Some change
will often be required, but it must be generally acceptable in the
relevant community and generally achievable. There is no point in
developing a standard that will take forensic facilities five years to
reach; at that time the standard will need to be reviewed again.
Instead a standard should reflect what is an accepted benchmark
for quality forensic science services at the time of publication,
noting that the document is a living document which will be
updated and will change and adapt over time, requiring incre-
ments of continuous improvement.
The development of standards within TC272 requires compro-
mise to cater for competing country priorities, which can have a
political overlay. Language difficulties in the development process
at committee meetings must be taken into account. Country
representatives where English is a second language must be given
time to consider the discussions and, if required, go back to
previous comments to continue discussion. This may make the
Committee process take longer, but it ensures all member opinions
are taken into account during the discussion and representatives
are comfortable, or at least understand the reasoning behind the
outcomes and committee resolutions.
One concern that is sometimes raised, is that ISO standards can
be Euro-centric, as there are often more European country member
representatives; the author has not experienced this influence in
the ISO TC272 deliberations. What the author has experienced is
the numerous discussions regarding the use of the terms ‘shall’,
‘should’, ‘may’ and ‘can’. According to the ISO Directives [2] the
term ‘shall’ is a requirement that must be adhered to (100% of the
time), ‘should’ refers to a recommendation (that is preferred),
‘may’ represents a permission and ‘can’ refers to a possibility and
capability [2]. The issues arise in the application of the terms ‘shall’
and ‘should’ in particular, with many discussions regarding
7
whether clauses should be a requirement or recommendation.
Additionally, courts of law and users of the forensic services may
interpret a recommendation as a requirement. These terms
therefore have significant implications for the Committee when
writing the standard and many committee discussions and country
comments focus on the level attached to the clauses.
Once the standards developed by ISO TC272 are published, ISO
member countries will need to determine whether to adopt them.
In doing this they will need to consider any pre-existing standards
that may be similar, such as in the case of Australia, that has
existing standards relating to the forensic science process. Country
SDO committees can either choose to retain the original country
standard, update the original country standard with learnings and
requirements from the new ISO standard, or adopt the ISO
standard as a replacement to the original country standard.
Standards developed under the Vienna Agreement [44] will be
adopted by CEN and so it will be compulsory in all CEN member
countries to withdraw any pre-existing standards that are in
conflict.
6. Conclusions
Global collaboration in any sphere will always be subject to
competing country priorities and political overlays. These are
further exacerbated by language difficulties and geographical
distances in the standard development process. The issue of
distance is particularly pertinent to Australia, more so as standard
development increasingly focuses on self-financing by industry
stakeholders.
The challenge will be to produce standards that are not
prescriptive with respect to methodology, but recognise existing
accepted practice and form an achievable, cohesive and consoli-
dated quality and risk management benchmark for forensic science
facility managers and accrediting bodies. The ultimate purpose of a
standard however, is not for the service provider, but rather the
customer. Independent accreditation to forensic standards pro-
vides confidence to police and the judicial system that the forensic
services provided are fit for purpose and produced to an
appropriate level of quality. This aspect cannot be understated
and is the ultimate reason why forensic facilities should move to
adopt international forensic standards. The work of ISO TC272 will
be an important component in that achievement.
8 L. Wilson-Wilde / Forensic Science International 288 (2018) 1–9
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Stephen Smith for assistance
with images and David Neville, Monja Korter and James Brandi for
their helpful comments on the manuscript.
References
[1] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Standards, 2017. https://
www.iso.org/standards.html. (Accessed 18 September 2017).
[2] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/IES Directives Part 1
Consolidated ISO Supplement 2017, 2017. Available at: http://isotc.iso.org/
livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=4230452&objAction=browse&sort=subtype.
(Accessed 18 September 2017).
[3] National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United
States: A Path Forward, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009.
[4] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), The facts about
certification, 2017. https://www.iso.org/certification.html. (Accessed 18 Sep-
tember 2017).
[5] Competency or management systems based standards? Frequently asked
questions, 2016. Available at: https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/
archive/pdf/en/casco-faq.pdf. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[6] International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), About ILAC, 2017.
http://ilac.org/about-ilac/. (Accessed 18 September 2017).
[7] ISO/IEC 17011:2004 Conformity assessment — General requirements for
bodies providing assessment and accreditation of conformity assessment
bodies and supplementary requirements documents, 2004. Available at:
https://www.iso.org/standard/29332.html. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[8] International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), The ILAC Mutual
Recognition Arrangement, 2015. Available at: http://ilac.org/about-ilac/.
(Accessed 18 September 2017).
[9] ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for the Competence of Testing
and Calibration Laboratories, 2017. Available at: https://www.iso.org/stan-
dard/66912.html. (Accessed 02 February 2018).
[10] ISO/IEC 15189:2012 Medical laboratories — Requirements for quality and
competence, 2012. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/56115.html.
(Accessed 19 September 2017).
[11] ISO/IEC 17020:2012 Conformity Assessment — Requirements for the Opera-
tion of Various Types of Bodies Performing Inspection, 2012. Available at:
https://www.iso.org/standard/52994.html. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[12] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), What is CASCO? 2017.
https://www.iso.org/casco.html. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[13] ISO/IEC 9001:2015 Quality management systems — Requirements. 2015.
Available at: https://www.iso.org/iso-9001-quality-management.html.
(Accessed 19 September 2017).
[14] ISO/IEC 14001:2015, Environmental management systems — Requirements
with guidance for use, 2015. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:
std:iso:14001:ed-3:v1:en. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[15] ILAC G19:08/2014 Modules in Forensic Science Process, 2014. Available at:
http://ilac.org/latest_ilac_news/ilac-g19082014-published/. (Accessed 19 Sep-
tember 2017).
[16] National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) Forensic Science ISO/IEC
17025 Application Document, 2015. Available at: https://www.nata.com.au/
nata/phocadownload/publications/Accreditation_criteria/ISO-IEC-17025/Fo-
rensic/Forensic-Science-Application-Document.pdf. (Accessed 19 September
2017).
[17] D.A. Board, Quality assurance standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories,
Forensic Sci. Commun. 2 (3) (2000) 1–14.
[18] UK Forensic Science Regulator Codes of Practice and Conduct for forensic
science providers and practitioners in the criminal justice system, 2016.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/499850/2016_2_11_-_The_Codes_of_Practice_and_Con-
duct_-_Issue_3.pdf. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[19] ANAB ISO/IEC 17025:2005 Forensic Science Testing Laboratories Accreditation
Requirements, 2005. Available at: https://anab.qualtraxcloud.com/ShowDo-
cument.aspx?ID=7104. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[20] ANAB ISO/IEC 17025:2005 Forensic Science Calibration Laboratories Accredi-
tation Requirements, 2005. Available at: https://anab.qualtraxcloud.com/
ShowDocument.aspx?ID=7105. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[21] American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ANAB and ASCLD/LAB Merge
Forensic Operations, 2016. https://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_-
story?menuid=7&articleid=a3415f4c-540e-467c-951c-a54815c29c64.
(Accessed 19 September 2017).
[22] American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Directory of accredited
organizations, 2017. http://search.anab.org/. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[23] American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), About us, 2017.
https://www.a2la.org/about. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[24] J.M. Butler, US initiatives to strengthen forensic science and international
standards in forensic DNA, Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 30 (18) (2015) 4–20.
[25] National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), About NAME, 2018.
https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=NAME&WebCo-
de=AboutNAME. (Accessed 12 February 2018).
[26] J. Brandi, L. Wilson-Wilde, Standard methods, 2nd ed., in: J.A. Siegel, P.J. Saukko
(Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Forensic Sciences, vol. 3, Academic Press, Waltham,
MA, 2013, pp. 522–527.
[27] Acts adopted under the EU Treaty, Council Framework Decision 2009/905/
Jha of 30 November 2009 on Accreditation of forensic service
providers carrying out laboratory activities. Off. J. Eur. Union L322 (2009)
(52):14–15.
[28] United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), Forensic Science, 2017 https://
www.ukas.com/sectors/forensic-science/. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[29] National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), 2017. http://www.nata.
com.au/accreditation-information/accreditation-criteria-and-guidance/nata-
accreditation-criteria-nac-packages/laboratory-accreditation-iso-iec-17025/
category/20-legal. (Accessed 1 March 2018).
[30] ISO/IEC 17024:2012, Conformity assessment — General requirements for
bodies operating certification of persons, 2012. Available at: https://www.iso.
org/standard/52993.html. (Accessed 19 September 2017).
[31] Standards Australia, Accreditation, 2017. http://www.standards.org.au/Stand-
ardsDevelopment/accreditation/Pages/default.aspx. (Accessed 26 September
2017).
[32] Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, 2015. Available at: https://www.
wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt.pdf. (Accessed 26 September 2017).
[33] J. Robertson, K. Kent, L. Wilson-Wilde, The development of a core forensic
standards framework for Australia, Forensic Sci. Policy Manage. 4 (3–4) (2013)
59–67.
[34] L. Wilson-Wilde, J. Brandi, S. Gutowski, The future of forensic science
standards, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 3 (2011) e333–e334.
[35] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International), About ASTM
International, 2017. https://www.astm.org/. (Accessed 26 September 2017).
[36] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International), Committee
E30 on Forensic Sciences, 2017. https://www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/E30.htm.
(Accessed 26 September 2017).
[37] J.M. Butler, U.S. initiatives to strengthen forensic science & international
standards in forensic DNA, Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 8 (2015) 4–20.
[38] Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC), 2017 https://www.nist.
gov/topics/forensic-science/organization-scientific-area-committees-osac.
(Accessed 26 September 2017).
[39] J.M. Butler, Recent activities in the United States involving the National
Commission on Forensic Science and the Organization of Scientific Area
Committees for Forensic Science, Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 3 (49) (2017) 526–540.
[40] British Standards Institution (BSI), 2017. https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/.
(Accessed 26 September 2017).
[41] PAS 377:2012—Specification for consumables used in the collection, preser-
vation and processing of material for forensic analysis. Requirements for
product, manufacturing and forensic kit assembly, 2012. Available at: https://
shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?
pid=000000000030252063&_ga=2.227165912.470302536.1506489186-
1307024815.1506489186. (Accessed 26 September 2017).
[42] Forensic Science Regulator, 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisa-
tions/forensic-science-regulator. (Accessed 26 September 2017).
[43] European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2017. https://www.cen.eu/
about/Pages/default.aspx. (Accessed 26 September 2017).
[44] The Agreement on technical cooperation between ISO and CEN (Vienna
Agreement), 2001. Available at: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=l-
l&objId=4230458&objAction=browse&sort=subtype. (Accessed 26 September
2017).
[45] European Committee for Standardization (CEN) CEN/TC 419—Forensic Science
Processes, 2017. Available at: https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?
p=204:7:0::FSP_ORG_ID:956162&cs=12B1BE75D1F5D53FABCE6B0479D-
D6A8BB. (Accessed 26 September 2017).
[46] European Committee for Standardization (CEN) European Standardization,
2017. https://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Pages/default.aspx. (Accessed 3
October 2017).
[47] International Organization for Standardization (ISO) member countries, 2017.
https://www.iso.org/members.html. (Accessed 27 September 2017).
[48] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/IES Directives Part 2,
2016. Available at: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objI-
d=4230456&objAction=browse&sort=subtype. (Accessed 27 September 2017).
[49] ISO 18385:2016 Minimizing the risk of human DNA contamination in products
used to collect, store and analyze biological material for forensic purposes —
Requirements, 2016. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/62341.html.
(Accessed 27 September 2017).
[50] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO TC272 Forensic
Sciences, 2017. https://www.iso.org/committee/4395817.html. (Accessed 5
September 2017).
[51] ISO/FDIS 21043.1 Forensic Sciences: Terms, definitions and framework, 2017.
Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/69732.html. (Accessed 27 Sep-
tember 2017).
[52] ISO/FDIS 21043.2 Forensic sciences: Recognition, recording, recovering,
transport and storage of material, 2017. Available at: https://www.iso.org/
standard/72041.html?browse=tc. (Accessed 27 September 2017).
[53] ISO/WD 21043.3 Forensic Sciences: Analysis and examination of material,
2017. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/72040.html. (Accessed 27
September 2017).
 L. Wilson-Wilde / Forensic Science International 288 (2018) 1–9
[54] ISO/WD 21043.4 Forensic Sciences: Interpretation, 2017. Available at: https://
www.iso.org/standard/72039.html?browse=tc. (Accessed 27 September
2017).
[55] ISO/WD 21043.5 Forensic Sciences: Reporting, 2017. Available at: https://
www.iso.org/standard/73896.html?browse=tc. (Accessed 27 September
2017).
[56] ISO/WD 20964 Specification for consumables used in the collection,
preservation and processing of material for forensic analysis — Requirements
for product, 2017. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/69627.html.
(Accessed 12 February 2018).
[57] ISO TC 272 Strategic Business Plan, 2017. Available at: http://isotc.iso.org/
livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/687806/ISO_TC_272_Forensic_Sciences_.
pdf?nodeid=18832591&vernum=-2. (Accessed 27 September 2017).
[58] Joint ISO/IEC Technical Committee 1 (JTC1), 2017. https://www.iso.org/
committee/45020/x/catalogue/. (Accessed 27 Sept 2017).
[59] ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27 IT Security Techniques, 2017. https://www.iso.org/
committee/45306.html. (Accessed 27 Sept 2017).
[60] ISO/IEC 27042: 2015. Information Technology – Security Techniques –
Guidelines for the Analysis and Interpretation of Digital Evidence, 2015.
Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/44406.html?browse=tc. (Accessed
27 September 2017).
9
[61] ISO/IEC 27037: 2012. Information Technology – Security Techniques –
Guidelines for Identification, Collection, Acquisition and Preservation of
Digital Evidence, 2012. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/44381.
html. (Accessed 27 September 2017).
[62] ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 37 Biometrics, 2017. https://www.iso.org/committee/313770/
x/catalogue/. (Accessed 27 September 2017).
[63] ISO/IEC AWI 22842-1 Information technology — Biometric performance
testing and reporting — Part 1: Methodology and tools for the validation
biometric methods for forensic evaluation and identification application, 2017.
Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/74021.html. (Accessed 27 Septem-
ber 2017).
[64] ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 40 IT Service Management and IT Governance, 2017. https://
www.iso.org/committee/5013818/x/catalogue/. (Accessed 27 September
2017).
[65] ISO/IEC 30121:2015 Preview. Information technology — Governance of digital
forensic risk framework, 2015. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/
53241.html. (Accessed 27 September 2017).
[66] ISO TC 106/SC 3 Terminology, 2017. https://www.iso.org/committee/51286.
html. (Accessed 27 September 2017).
[67] ISO/CD 20888. Dentistry — Forensic dental data set, 2017. Available at: https://
www.iso.org/standard/69372.html. (Accessed 27 September 2017).