🚨 Clearance Without Fairness 🚨
For over a century, courts have admitted “science” first and asked hard questions later — handwriting analysis, bite marks, arson indicators, blood spatter, even microscopic hair comparison. Each promised certainty. Each collapsed under scrutiny.
The warnings are on record:
NRC (2009): Forensic science suffers from foundational flaws.
PCAST (2016): Courts must exclude unvalidated methods.
DOJ/FBI (2015): 90% of microscopic hair testimony was materially wrong.
Now hair toxicology stands at the same crossroads. Psychemedics’ SEC filings (1995–2024) repeat the mantra: “history of use,” “approximate amount ingested,” “FDA 510(k) cleared.” But 510(k) ≠ scientific validation. Clearance means market equivalence — not proof of accuracy, fairness, or reliability.
Boston learned this the hard way:
CSC (2013) — “Hair alone cannot prove ingestion.”
Jones v. Boston (2014/2016) — disparate impact on Black officers.
2021 — City abandons hair testing.
2023 — $2.6M paid to settle.
The lesson? Admission must follow validation, not precede it. Courts, employers, and policymakers can’t afford another forensic cautionary tale.
#ClearanceWithoutFairness #HairTesting #ForensicScience #FDA510k #Rule702 #Frye #UGESP #TitleVII #CivilRights #EmploymentLaw #ScientificValidity
Read my latest thought-piece: Clearance Without Fairness: courts keep warning us about unvalidated “science.” Hair testing should not be the next cautionary tale
buff.ly/x0lmtl8