Forensic science

　　司法科學(xué)

　　Ignorance is bliss

　　無(wú)知即是福

　　Forensic scientists know too much about the casesthey investigate

　　法醫(yī)科學(xué)家對(duì)他們調(diào)查的案子知道得太多

　　AS ALL fans of crime fiction know, DNA is the gold standard of forensic science. Or is it?

　　所有的罪案小說(shuō)迷都知道，DNA是司法科學(xué)的黃金標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。它到底是么?

　　Itiel Dror, a cognitive psychologist at University College, London, thinks this doctrine ofinfallibility needs to be questioned.

　　一位倫敦的大學(xué)認(rèn)知心理學(xué)專家Itiel Dror認(rèn)為這個(gè)說(shuō)法的正確性有待考驗(yàn)。

　　His problem is not with the technology itself, but with the way it is deployed.

　　他的問(wèn)題不是針對(duì)技術(shù)本身而是它進(jìn)行的方式。

　　For he has gathered evidence that DNA examiners interpretations of their results are, atleast in complex cases, open to subjectivity and bias.

　　因?yàn)樗呀?jīng)搜集了證據(jù)證明DNA鑒定者對(duì)他們結(jié)果的解釋至少在復(fù)雜的案子里易受主觀性和偏差的影響。

　　When America s National Academy of Sciences produced a report on the state of forensicscience in 2009,

　　當(dāng)美國(guó)國(guó)家科學(xué)院在2009年發(fā)表了一片關(guān)于司法科學(xué)現(xiàn)狀的報(bào)告時(shí)，

　　it criticised many of the methods then in use.

　　它批判了很多當(dāng)時(shí)正在應(yīng)用的鑒定方式。

　　Citing earlier research by Dr Dror, thereport s authors stated,

　　引用這篇報(bào)道的作者Dror博士早前做的研究，

　　for example, that fingerprint examiners claims of zero error rates were scientificallyimplausible.

　　例如，指紋鑒定者宣稱的零誤差在科學(xué)上是不合理的。

　　DNA, however, was spared their criticism. Now Dr Dror and Greg Hampikian,

　　然而DNA省去了他們的批判。

　　a forensic biologist at Boise State University in Idaho, have published a study in Science Justice that suggests all is not shipshape in the domain of the double helix either.

　　現(xiàn)在，Dror博士和博伊西的愛達(dá)荷州立大學(xué)的法醫(yī)學(xué)生物學(xué)家Greg Hampikian在科學(xué)與正義上發(fā)表了一篇研究，表明所有的東西都不是井然有序的，在雙螺旋線的領(lǐng)域里也不是。

　　Dr Dror s and Dr Hampikian s experiment presented data from a real case to 17 DNAexaminers working in an accredited government laboratory in North America.

　　博士Dror和Dr Hampikian博士的實(shí)驗(yàn)提供一個(gè)真實(shí)案例的數(shù)據(jù)給17個(gè)在一家受認(rèn)可的北美政府實(shí)驗(yàn)室里工作的DNA鑒定員。

　　The case involved a gang rape in the state of Georgia, in which one of the rapists testifiedagainst three other suspects in exchange for a lighter sentence,

　　這起案件涉及到一宗喬治亞州的輪奸案，其中一名強(qiáng)奸犯為了讓自己獲得輕判做了不利于其它三名嫌疑者的證言，

　　as part of a plea bargain.

　　作為認(rèn)罪辯訴協(xié)議的一部分。

　　All three denied involvement, but the two DNA examiners in the original case both foundthat they could not exclude one of the three from having been involved, based on ananalysis of swabs taken from the victim.

　　其他三名嫌疑人全部否認(rèn)參與強(qiáng)奸，但是根據(jù)從受害者處提取的藥簽分析，原案中有兩位DNA鑒定師都發(fā)現(xiàn)他們無(wú)法排除三名中的其中一名參與了強(qiáng)奸。

　　As is almost always true in forensic-science laboratories, these examiners knew what thecase was about.

　　由于在司法科學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)室里總是什么都是對(duì)的，這些鑒定師們知道這個(gè)案子到底是怎么回事了。

　　And their findings were crucial to the outcome because in Georgia, as in many other states,a plea bargain cannot be accepted without corroborating evidence.

　　而且他們的手指對(duì)于出來(lái)的結(jié)果是至關(guān)重要的，因?yàn)樵趩讨蝸啠瑫r(shí)也在很多其它州，認(rèn)罪辯訴如果沒(méi)有確實(shí)的證據(jù)是無(wú)法被接受的。

　　However, of the 17 examiners Dr Dror and Dr Hampikian approachedwho, unlike theoriginal two,

　　然而，在Dror博士和Hampikian接觸的17個(gè)鑒定師中他們不像開始兩位鑒定師那樣，

　　knew nothing about the context of the crime,

　　對(duì)犯罪內(nèi)容一無(wú)所知，

　　only one thought that the same suspect could not be excluded.

　　有一位認(rèn)為一樣的嫌疑不能被排除。

　　Twelve others excluded him, and four abstained.

　　另外十二位把他排除了，而四位棄權(quán)。

　　Though they cannot prove it, Dr Dror and Dr Hampikian suspect the difference in contextualinformation given to the examiners was the cause of the different results.

　　盡管他們無(wú)法證明，Dror博士和Hampikian博士懷疑鑒定師得到的上下文信息的區(qū)別是引起這些不同結(jié)果的原因。

　　The original pair may have subliminally interpreted ambiguous information in a way helpfulto the prosecution, even though they did not consciously realise what they were doing.

　　開始的兩個(gè)人也許已經(jīng)在下意識(shí)里以某種有益于控方的方式破譯了模棱兩可的信息，即使他們沒(méi)有清楚地意識(shí)到當(dāng)時(shí)他們?cè)谧鍪裁础?/p>

　　And DNA data are ambiguous more often than is generally realised.

　　而且DNA數(shù)據(jù)往往比普遍了解的要模棱兩可。

　　Dr Dror thinks that in about 25% of cases, tiny samples or the mixing of material from morethan one person can lead to such ambiguity.

　　Dror博士認(rèn)為在大約25%的案子里，小樣本或者從不止一人身上取來(lái)的混合物質(zhì)可能導(dǎo)致這樣的二義性。

　　Moreover, such is DNA s reputation that, when faced with claims that the molecule puts adefendant in a place where a crime has been committed,

　　此外，DNA的好名聲就是這樣，當(dāng)面臨宣稱用DNA分子證明被告所犯的罪的時(shí)候，

　　that defendant will often agree to a plea-bargain he might otherwise not have accepted.

　　被告通常會(huì)同意認(rèn)罪辯訴，否則他也許不會(huì)接受。

　　This one example does not prove the existence of a systematic problem.

　　這個(gè)例子沒(méi)有證明系統(tǒng)性問(wèn)題的存在。

　　But it does point to a sloppy approach to science.

　　但是它確實(shí)指出了一個(gè)科學(xué)上草率的方法。

　　According to Norah Rudin, a forensic-DNA consultant in Mountain View, California, forensicscientists are beginning to accept that cognitive bias exists,

　　根據(jù)一位加利福尼亞州芒廷維尤的法庭DNA顧問(wèn)Norah Rudin，法庭科學(xué)家正在開始接受那種認(rèn)知性偏差的存在，

　　but there is still a lot of resistance to the idea, because examiners take the criticismpersonally and feel they are being accused of doing bad science.

　　但仍然有很多阻力，因?yàn)殍b定師個(gè)人會(huì)接受批評(píng)，覺(jué)得自己被譴責(zé)說(shuō)自然科學(xué)學(xué)得差。

　　According to Dr Rudin, the attitude that cognitive bias can somehow be willed away, byeducation, training or good intentions, is still pervasive.

　　根據(jù)Rudin博士，認(rèn)知偏差可以通過(guò)某種方式意識(shí)性去除的態(tài)度是普遍的，比如通過(guò)教育、訓(xùn)練或好意的方式。

　　Medical researchers, by contrast, take great care to make drug trials blind,

　　相比之下，醫(yī)學(xué)研究者非常注意使藥物試驗(yàn)不透明，

　　so that neither the patient nor the administering doctor knows who is receiving the drug beingtested, and who is getting a control drug or placebo.

　　所以病人和用藥的醫(yī)生都不知道接受藥物測(cè)試的是誰(shuí)，和控制藥物和安慰劑的是誰(shuí)。

　　When someone s freedomand, in an American context, possibly his life, as wellis atstake,

　　在美國(guó)環(huán)境中，當(dāng)某人的自由和他的生命也危在旦夕的時(shí)候，

　　it surely behoves forensic-science laboratories to take precautions that are equally strong.

　　法醫(yī)科學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)室應(yīng)當(dāng)采取相當(dāng)?shù)膹?qiáng)預(yù)防措施。

　　詞語(yǔ)解釋

　　1.forensic a.法院的;關(guān)于法庭的

　　A specialist in forensic medicine was called as awitness in the murder trial.

　　在那樁謀殺案的審理中，一名法醫(yī)專家被召來(lái)作證。

　　2.investigate v.調(diào)查;研究

　　We might be able to help you; I ll investigate thepossibilities.

　　我們也許能幫助你，我要研究一下這種可能性。

　　3.psychologist n.心理學(xué)家，心理學(xué)者

　　The psychologist always assign work to each researcher.

　　這位心理學(xué)家總是將工作分派給每個(gè)研究員。

　　4.implausible a.難信的;似乎不合情理的

　　His excuses were totally implausible.

　　他的借口完全不可相信。

　　5.experiment n.試驗(yàn);實(shí)驗(yàn);嘗試

　　The researchers are repeating the experiment on rats.

　　研究人員用老鼠反覆做該試驗(yàn)。

　　Forensic science

　　司法科學(xué)

　　Ignorance is bliss

　　無(wú)知即是福

　　Forensic scientists know too much about the casesthey investigate

　　法醫(yī)科學(xué)家對(duì)他們調(diào)查的案子知道得太多

　　AS ALL fans of crime fiction know, DNA is the gold standard of forensic science. Or is it?

　　所有的罪案小說(shuō)迷都知道，DNA是司法科學(xué)的黃金標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。它到底是么?

　　Itiel Dror, a cognitive psychologist at University College, London, thinks this doctrine ofinfallibility needs to be questioned.

　　一位倫敦的大學(xué)認(rèn)知心理學(xué)專家Itiel Dror認(rèn)為這個(gè)說(shuō)法的正確性有待考驗(yàn)。

　　His problem is not with the technology itself, but with the way it is deployed.

　　他的問(wèn)題不是針對(duì)技術(shù)本身而是它進(jìn)行的方式。

　　For he has gathered evidence that DNA examiners interpretations of their results are, atleast in complex cases, open to subjectivity and bias.

　　因?yàn)樗呀?jīng)搜集了證據(jù)證明DNA鑒定者對(duì)他們結(jié)果的解釋至少在復(fù)雜的案子里易受主觀性和偏差的影響。

　　When America s National Academy of Sciences produced a report on the state of forensicscience in 2009,

　　當(dāng)美國(guó)國(guó)家科學(xué)院在2009年發(fā)表了一片關(guān)于司法科學(xué)現(xiàn)狀的報(bào)告時(shí)，

　　it criticised many of the methods then in use.

　　它批判了很多當(dāng)時(shí)正在應(yīng)用的鑒定方式。

　　Citing earlier research by Dr Dror, thereport s authors stated,

　　引用這篇報(bào)道的作者Dror博士早前做的研究，

　　for example, that fingerprint examiners claims of zero error rates were scientificallyimplausible.

　　例如，指紋鑒定者宣稱的零誤差在科學(xué)上是不合理的。

　　DNA, however, was spared their criticism. Now Dr Dror and Greg Hampikian,

　　然而DNA省去了他們的批判。

　　a forensic biologist at Boise State University in Idaho, have published a study in Science Justice that suggests all is not shipshape in the domain of the double helix either.

　　現(xiàn)在，Dror博士和博伊西的愛達(dá)荷州立大學(xué)的法醫(yī)學(xué)生物學(xué)家Greg Hampikian在科學(xué)與正義上發(fā)表了一篇研究，表明所有的東西都不是井然有序的，在雙螺旋線的領(lǐng)域里也不是。

　　Dr Dror s and Dr Hampikian s experiment presented data from a real case to 17 DNAexaminers working in an accredited government laboratory in North America.

　　博士Dror和Dr Hampikian博士的實(shí)驗(yàn)提供一個(gè)真實(shí)案例的數(shù)據(jù)給17個(gè)在一家受認(rèn)可的北美政府實(shí)驗(yàn)室里工作的DNA鑒定員。

　　The case involved a gang rape in the state of Georgia, in which one of the rapists testifiedagainst three other suspects in exchange for a lighter sentence,

　　這起案件涉及到一宗喬治亞州的輪奸案，其中一名強(qiáng)奸犯為了讓自己獲得輕判做了不利于其它三名嫌疑者的證言，

　　as part of a plea bargain.

　　作為認(rèn)罪辯訴協(xié)議的一部分。

　　All three denied involvement, but the two DNA examiners in the original case both foundthat they could not exclude one of the three from having been involved, based on ananalysis of swabs taken from the victim.

　　其他三名嫌疑人全部否認(rèn)參與強(qiáng)奸，但是根據(jù)從受害者處提取的藥簽分析，原案中有兩位DNA鑒定師都發(fā)現(xiàn)他們無(wú)法排除三名中的其中一名參與了強(qiáng)奸。

　　As is almost always true in forensic-science laboratories, these examiners knew what thecase was about.

　　由于在司法科學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)室里總是什么都是對(duì)的，這些鑒定師們知道這個(gè)案子到底是怎么回事了。

　　And their findings were crucial to the outcome because in Georgia, as in many other states,a plea bargain cannot be accepted without corroborating evidence.

　　而且他們的手指對(duì)于出來(lái)的結(jié)果是至關(guān)重要的，因?yàn)樵趩讨蝸啠瑫r(shí)也在很多其它州，認(rèn)罪辯訴如果沒(méi)有確實(shí)的證據(jù)是無(wú)法被接受的。

　　However, of the 17 examiners Dr Dror and Dr Hampikian approachedwho, unlike theoriginal two,

　　然而，在Dror博士和Hampikian接觸的17個(gè)鑒定師中他們不像開始兩位鑒定師那樣，

　　knew nothing about the context of the crime,

　　對(duì)犯罪內(nèi)容一無(wú)所知，

　　only one thought that the same suspect could not be excluded.

　　有一位認(rèn)為一樣的嫌疑不能被排除。

　　Twelve others excluded him, and four abstained.

　　另外十二位把他排除了，而四位棄權(quán)。

　　Though they cannot prove it, Dr Dror and Dr Hampikian suspect the difference in contextualinformation given to the examiners was the cause of the different results.

　　盡管他們無(wú)法證明，Dror博士和Hampikian博士懷疑鑒定師得到的上下文信息的區(qū)別是引起這些不同結(jié)果的原因。

　　The original pair may have subliminally interpreted ambiguous information in a way helpfulto the prosecution, even though they did not consciously realise what they were doing.

　　開始的兩個(gè)人也許已經(jīng)在下意識(shí)里以某種有益于控方的方式破譯了模棱兩可的信息，即使他們沒(méi)有清楚地意識(shí)到當(dāng)時(shí)他們?cè)谧鍪裁础?/p>

　　And DNA data are ambiguous more often than is generally realised.

　　而且DNA數(shù)據(jù)往往比普遍了解的要模棱兩可。

　　Dr Dror thinks that in about 25% of cases, tiny samples or the mixing of material from morethan one person can lead to such ambiguity.

　　Dror博士認(rèn)為在大約25%的案子里，小樣本或者從不止一人身上取來(lái)的混合物質(zhì)可能導(dǎo)致這樣的二義性。

　　Moreover, such is DNA s reputation that, when faced with claims that the molecule puts adefendant in a place where a crime has been committed,

　　此外，DNA的好名聲就是這樣，當(dāng)面臨宣稱用DNA分子證明被告所犯的罪的時(shí)候，

　　that defendant will often agree to a plea-bargain he might otherwise not have accepted.

　　被告通常會(huì)同意認(rèn)罪辯訴，否則他也許不會(huì)接受。

　　This one example does not prove the existence of a systematic problem.

　　這個(gè)例子沒(méi)有證明系統(tǒng)性問(wèn)題的存在。

　　But it does point to a sloppy approach to science.

　　但是它確實(shí)指出了一個(gè)科學(xué)上草率的方法。

　　According to Norah Rudin, a forensic-DNA consultant in Mountain View, California, forensicscientists are beginning to accept that cognitive bias exists,

　　根據(jù)一位加利福尼亞州芒廷維尤的法庭DNA顧問(wèn)Norah Rudin，法庭科學(xué)家正在開始接受那種認(rèn)知性偏差的存在，

　　but there is still a lot of resistance to the idea, because examiners take the criticismpersonally and feel they are being accused of doing bad science.

　　但仍然有很多阻力，因?yàn)殍b定師個(gè)人會(huì)接受批評(píng)，覺(jué)得自己被譴責(zé)說(shuō)自然科學(xué)學(xué)得差。

　　According to Dr Rudin, the attitude that cognitive bias can somehow be willed away, byeducation, training or good intentions, is still pervasive.

　　根據(jù)Rudin博士，認(rèn)知偏差可以通過(guò)某種方式意識(shí)性去除的態(tài)度是普遍的，比如通過(guò)教育、訓(xùn)練或好意的方式。

　　Medical researchers, by contrast, take great care to make drug trials blind,

　　相比之下，醫(yī)學(xué)研究者非常注意使藥物試驗(yàn)不透明，

　　so that neither the patient nor the administering doctor knows who is receiving the drug beingtested, and who is getting a control drug or placebo.

　　所以病人和用藥的醫(yī)生都不知道接受藥物測(cè)試的是誰(shuí)，和控制藥物和安慰劑的是誰(shuí)。

　　When someone s freedomand, in an American context, possibly his life, as wellis atstake,

　　在美國(guó)環(huán)境中，當(dāng)某人的自由和他的生命也危在旦夕的時(shí)候，

　　it surely behoves forensic-science laboratories to take precautions that are equally strong.

　　法醫(yī)科學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)室應(yīng)當(dāng)采取相當(dāng)?shù)膹?qiáng)預(yù)防措施。

　　詞語(yǔ)解釋

　　1.forensic a.法院的;關(guān)于法庭的

　　A specialist in forensic medicine was called as awitness in the murder trial.

　　在那樁謀殺案的審理中，一名法醫(yī)專家被召來(lái)作證。

　　2.investigate v.調(diào)查;研究

　　We might be able to help you; I ll investigate thepossibilities.

　　我們也許能幫助你，我要研究一下這種可能性。

　　3.psychologist n.心理學(xué)家，心理學(xué)者

　　The psychologist always assign work to each researcher.

　　這位心理學(xué)家總是將工作分派給每個(gè)研究員。

　　4.implausible a.難信的;似乎不合情理的

　　His excuses were totally implausible.

　　他的借口完全不可相信。

　　5.experiment n.試驗(yàn);實(shí)驗(yàn);嘗試

　　The researchers are repeating the experiment on rats.

　　研究人員用老鼠反覆做該試驗(yàn)。