Science, Suspects, and Systems: Lessons from the Anthrax Investigation

Q3 Social Sciences Issues in Legal Scholarship Pub Date : 2009-05-17 DOI:10.2202/1539-8323.1110
E. Murphy, D. Sklansky
{"title":"Science, Suspects, and Systems: Lessons from the Anthrax Investigation","authors":"E. Murphy, D. Sklansky","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The anthrax mailings of late 2001 triggered one of the costliest and most complex criminal investigations in the history of the United States Department of Justice. Parts of that investigation were carried out with impressive skill and creativity, but parts were not. The seven-year history of the anthrax investigation highlights certain longstanding problems at the Department of Justice: the Department's underdeveloped interface with organized science, its insufficient preparation for criminal investigations conducted at the intersection of public health, and its lack of formalized processes for institutional learning. This article reviews the course of the Department of Justice's anthrax investigation and then draws two sets of lessons, one having to do with thinking systematically about science, and the other having to do with thinking scientifically about systems. The first set of lessons includes the need for better and clearer decision-making and communication protocols for crises arising at the intersection of law enforcement and public health, the benefits of preserving the values of transparency and neutrality in harnessing scientific expertise, and the desirability of institutional structures to bridge the culture gap between law enforcement and science. The second set of lessons centers on the advantages of developing formal procedures for institutional learning within the Department of Justice, modeled on the \"after action\" reviews conducted by other government agencies.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1110","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The anthrax mailings of late 2001 triggered one of the costliest and most complex criminal investigations in the history of the United States Department of Justice. Parts of that investigation were carried out with impressive skill and creativity, but parts were not. The seven-year history of the anthrax investigation highlights certain longstanding problems at the Department of Justice: the Department's underdeveloped interface with organized science, its insufficient preparation for criminal investigations conducted at the intersection of public health, and its lack of formalized processes for institutional learning. This article reviews the course of the Department of Justice's anthrax investigation and then draws two sets of lessons, one having to do with thinking systematically about science, and the other having to do with thinking scientifically about systems. The first set of lessons includes the need for better and clearer decision-making and communication protocols for crises arising at the intersection of law enforcement and public health, the benefits of preserving the values of transparency and neutrality in harnessing scientific expertise, and the desirability of institutional structures to bridge the culture gap between law enforcement and science. The second set of lessons centers on the advantages of developing formal procedures for institutional learning within the Department of Justice, modeled on the "after action" reviews conducted by other government agencies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科学、嫌疑人和系统:炭疽调查的教训
2001年底的炭疽邮件引发了美国司法部历史上最昂贵、最复杂的刑事调查之一。调查的部分内容以令人印象深刻的技巧和创造力进行,但部分内容则不然。炭疽调查的七年历史凸显了司法部某些长期存在的问题:该部门与有组织的科学联系不充分,对公共卫生交叉领域进行的刑事调查准备不足,以及缺乏正式的机构学习程序。本文回顾了司法部炭疽热调查的过程,然后得出了两组教训,一组与系统地思考科学有关,另一组与科学地思考系统有关。第一套经验教训包括:需要制定更好和更明确的决策和沟通协议,以应对在执法和公共卫生交叉点产生的危机;在利用科学专门知识方面保持透明度和中立的价值的好处;需要建立体制结构,以弥合执法和科学之间的文化差距。第二组课程的重点是在司法部内制定正式的机构学习程序的好处,这些程序以其他政府机构进行的“事后”审查为模板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Issues in Legal Scholarship
Issues in Legal Scholarship Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Legal Scholarship presents cutting-edge legal and policy research using the format of online peer-reviewed symposia. The journal’s emphasis on interdisciplinary work and legal theory extends to recent symposium topics such as Single-Sex Marriage, The Reformation of American Administrative Law, and Catastrophic Risks. The symposia systematically address emerging issues of great significance, offering ongoing scholarship of interest to a wide range of policy and legal researchers. Online publication makes it possible for other researchers to find the best and latest quickly, as well as to join in further discussion. Each symposium aims to be a living forum with ongoing publications and commentaries.
期刊最新文献
Current understanding of extracellular vesicle homing/tropism. Tort Policy in a Plural Context: Pathways Towards Objective Liability in UAE Tort Law Eliciting Best Evidence from a Child Witness: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and India Bumped Redundancy and the Range of Reasonable Responses: To what Extent, if any, should Employers Consider Bumping? Life after Mirab v Mentor Graphics Limited UKEAT/0172/17DA Deconstructing the Opacity of Pari Passu Clause as a Pathway to Interpretative Clarity: Guidepost to Optimal Adjudicatory Outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1