Telling it like it is - Let's hope they are listening
Thanks to the Charles Smith Smith blog I was able to read the keynote address to the 2010 Fire Investigation Science and Technology Conference. The address was given by a leading arson expert - Daniel Churchward - and titled "Fire Investigation is Still Art and Not Science".
Mr. Churchward pulled no punches, and I imagine was not the most popular person at the conference. Which I think make his remarks even more significant.
For starters, he criticized the training of fire investigators, noting that they don't have to meet any standards, nor do they need to show any level of competency. He also criticized the refusal to accept fire science by many veteran investigators because it was contrary to what they have always been taught. Much of what they have been taught is by people they respect and trust, and by accepting something different they have to accept that were misinformed, and have been doing it wrong for years. He quoted from Carl Sagan who said that "If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle."
One of the more interesting subjects he addressed was the effect of not having understanding of the chemistry and physics as it relates to fire initiation and growth. He notes:
Without a rudimentary knowledge of such relationships, the fire investigator can only apply his acquired logic to what he sees. Logic is a terrible means to scientific thinking. It is what got us a flat earth, witchcraft and crop circles. This lack of scientific educational baseline creates the probability of considerable error in any hypotheses formed by this analysis
He criticized the so called tests or experiments they do at fire schools using the example of igniting a flammable liquid in a room and observing what happens. Without scientific knowledge you have now way of determining what was observed was unique, or present in fires with no flammable liquids. He also notes that the lack of basic knowledge prevents investigators from being able to "kick the tires of some proposed theory they have just heard at a fire seminar."
Here's what else he has to say about the lack of basic knowledge:
The lack of knowledge of physical and chemical phenomena allows for the development of incorrect beliefs by fire investigators. It tolerates the creation of myths and rules of thumb. Further, it allows for the perpetuation of the process by letting that same investigator, as he gains experience, to “educate” his younger associates on the same misconceptions. It gives that poorly educated investigator the perception that he is knowledgeable and therefore correct in his determinations.
Mr. Churchward also talks about the concept of "negative corpus", which is the methodology whereby one determines the cause of fire by elimination of all identified or perceived ignition sources within an area of origin. The problem - among many - if what if you get the area of origin wrong?
Many of the problems can be traced to a lack of training. He describes a test he did at a training seminar where they asked attendees to determine what happened by looking at fire damage. The result was a 75% failure rate. In other words, the chances are way better than 50-50 that the fire investigator gets it wrong. It doesn't send shivers down your spine the next part should.
He talks about the inherent bias most investigators have, which causes them to focus on factors that have nothing to do with the fire's inception. Those include:
1. The fire victim was not financially secure
2. The home was either for sale or in need of repair
3. The fire victim been in the structure just prior to the development of the fire
4. The fire victim was either unsavory or had previous experiences such as another fire or previous arrests
5. The physical evidence from the fire cannot be explained by the investigator
As he notes, if you have a fire today and one of those circumstances exist you are going to experience a very unpleasant situation.
Mr. Churchward also notes the bias that fire investigators must have. Insurance companies want answers - preferably one that says arson so they don't have to pay. As he notes, telling a client you don't know what caused the fire is not going to get you much work.
He also lays the blame on the judges, noting that rarely will a fire investigator be declared unqualified. Most of those are in civil, and not criminal cases.
I'm sure Mr. Churchward's call for more training, and mandatory certification was not well received. My guess is that if you required certification exams which mirrored real world situations most would be out of a job. Nevertheless, it's nice to see someone who knows what they are doing addressing the problem - in hostile territory no less.
