Whilst the joint UKCLE/Physical Sciences Centre event on law and forensic science teaching was free to attend, both Carole McCartney and John Cassella made us work for our lunch earlier today. Over 40 delegates attended what was originally planned for 20, and still more were on the reserve list thus indicating that the level of interest. An even split between law and science teachers brought a balance to the discussions.
Entitled ‘lowering the drawbridge : law and forensic science education in the 21st century’, the event was designed specifically to discuss what legal education forensic science students require, and what scientific training law students require. These two bastions of academia may indeed lower their drawbridges for passing trade between the two disciplines, but at what cost, to what ends, and are there trolls beneath the bridges causing us concerns?
I felt it was a very productive day, not only to take stock of my own module’s content and style of delivery, but also to hear and reflect on the practice of others, both common and uncommon needs and barriers. This confirmed the expected diversity (in terms of how much forensic science law students get, and vice versa) that Carole proposed in Directions (and which I blogged on the Scottish perspective) last year.
No doubt we have raised more questions than had to start with, and answered fewer of the original questions than we anticipated, but hopefully this will be the start of a process to engage the two disciplines and offer some introductions to each other’s worlds.
Not wishing to pre-empt the joint report that Carole and John will prepare (with the assistance of all those who attended – no easy task!) for the HEA subject centres, I shall simply leave you with a few recently published resources (by no means exhaustive) that were briefly noted:
Merlino et al (2008) Science in the Law School Curriculum: A Snapshot of the Legal Education Landscape, Journal of Legal Education, 58(2) 190-213
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS)(2009) Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, in particular chapter 8.
Law Commission (2009) Expert Evidence in Criminal Trials
Recent Comments