In recent years the entertainment media have grown ever bolder in their depiction of dramatic simulations of realworld forensic laboratory investigation. Hardly an evening goes by without some graphic display of human remains in crime scenes, autopsy suites—or both. Our new heroes (and heroines) handle state-of-the-art analytical tools as deftly as their predecessors handled thugs, sidearms, and intrigue.

Clearly, TV shows and movies have spurred interest in the science of forensics well beyond laboratory walls. In fact, some lawyers have come to believe in what’s called “ The CSI Effect” (or “CSI syndrome”). Expecting that jurors may be inclined to grant undue credibility to forensic evidence because of what they’ve seen on TV, they may choose to withhold such evidence or alter their strategies in response to increasing—if uninformed—awareness of forensics among potential jurors.

When it comes to assessing just how accurate those simulations are, viewers who work in clean manufacturing have an advantage over those who don’t. Those employed in particle-sensitive industries will recognize gunshot residue (GSR), cartridge discharge residue (CDR), and firearm discharge residue analysis techniques (FDR). The appropriate analytical technologies have been evolving in parallel for the last 40 to 50 years.

THREE DIFFERENCES
Despite the many similarities between clean manufacturing and forensics, at least three differences distinguish the work done in those fields: First, analytical results must be interpreted following rules of a formal interpretive process. In analyzing cartridge discharge residue, for example, it’s necessary to determine whether the residue came from combustion of a primer or from some other source. That seemingly trivial difference can matter greatly in a legal case.