114 Forensic dentistry
compliance with the QAS in accordance with the DNA Identification Act of
- Current national standards require annual audits with a mandatory
external assessment in alternating years. A collective effort by the FBI, the
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation
Board (ASCLD/LAB), and the National Forensic Science Technology Center
(NFSTC) produced a DNA audit guide that helped reduce the subjective
interpretations of the QAS.18,19,24,25
In a step further than demonstration of compliance with the QAS, most
U.S.-based laboratories choose to pursue formal accreditation. The most
commonly sought accreditations are through ASCLD/LAB or NFSTC.
ASCLD/LAB is currently moving to an international certification in partner-
ship with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), specifi-
cally under standards for competence of testing and calibration laboratories
(ISO/IEC 17025:2005).24,26 NFSTC provides similar accreditation through its
not-for-profit subsidiary Forensic Quality Services (FQS).25,27 Other creden-
tialing bodies less common to conventional forensic DNA operations include
the College of American Pathologists^28 and the American Association of
Blood Banks.^29 However, certifications from these latter bodies are gener-
ally found in laboratories that provide medical diagnoses, blood banking, or
paternity testing in addition to criminal evidence processing.
If the forensic odontologist is involved in developing a contingency
where DNA analysis will impact on his casework, including a mass fatality
incident response plan, he or she would do well to research local laboratories’
technical capabilities, as well as the status of their QAS compliance and any
accreditations that they may hold. Any concerns associated with the qualifi-
cation of laboratory staff or past audit results should be resolved well before
large amounts of critical evidence are submitted to the laboratory.
7.4 DNA and the Management of Mass Fatality Incidents
In many ways the application of forensic DNA testing in a mass fatality inci-
dent is a two-edged sword. The technology is very precise and can individ-
ualize extremely small fragments of bones and tissue. It seems perfect for
sorting out the largest and most complex disaster scenarios. But, the same
exquisite capacity for detailed analysis is counterbalanced by a high cost in
both time and material resources. Overuse may actually delay the closing of
cases. The laboratory facility is almost never collocated with the morgue or
incident location, so evidence transfer, communication of the test results, and
coordination of DNA data with the other investigative findings are as much
a challenge as the laboratory processing requirement itself. And, given these
challenges and their inherent potential for delaying final case resolution, repa-
triation of the victims’ bodies, and family notification, where does the case
