116 Forensic dentistry
7.4.2 Establishing the Scope
A large-scale disaster disrupts the affected jurisdiction in many ways—physi-
cally, emotionally, economically, and politically. As soon as possible, however,
the disaster response plan must be applied and the journey away from chaos
will begin. One of the most significant decisions made by local authorities
involves the scope of the medicolegal death investigation. Essentially, a deci-
sion must be made regarding whether the identification of all biological
material recovered will be sought versus the more direct goal of establish-
ing each victim’s identity and a firm cause and manner of death for those
involved. This and other decisions, such as balancing speed versus accuracy,
will place the DNA laboratory and the case manager on a tightrope between
conscientiousness and controversy. Government and elected officials, families
of the victims, the media, and even the laboratory staff themselves will ebb
and flow between resolve, compassion, and frustration. Establishing realistic
expectations in the beginning, even if they seem pessimistic or unpopular,
will purchase more patience and credibility as the postevent investigation
wears on.30–32,34
7.4.3 Communicating with the Laboratory
The single most important fact to remember when dealing with remote DNA
support is that the laboratory analyst does not have the opportunity to see,
hear, feel, or understand and process the information available to those at the
incident location or morgue unless it is communicated to them clearly. Some
odontologists will empathize with this challenge, knowing that in clinical
dental cases dental laboratories must rely almost exclusively on the infor-
mation submitted on the work request form. Depending on the quality and
experience of the dental laboratory, if the clinician submits poor or incom-
plete information or flawed casts or impressions, then the lack of clarity will
certainly be reflected in the final product. It is much the same with forensic
DNA laboratories providing services to an operation many miles away.
Unfortunately, the surge in samples and the unrelenting public call for imme-
diacy will complicate the communications effort even further. For example,
if the morgue submits a sample for DNA processing with the wrong specimen
number, the results will come back to the morgue potentially associating that
sample with the wrong remains. If the collection team erroneously labels a
sample as left tibia when in fact it was from a right tibia, then the DNA lab will
unknowingly perpetuate that anatomical error in the report back to the field.
The best way to avoid these pitfalls is to be aware that communication is an
issue, establish a relationship with the laboratory before an incident occurs,
and have trained teams of forensic scientists prepared to select the samples for
DNA analysis and complete chain-of-custody documentation accurately.30–32