Tarone Aaron M, Sanford Michelle R
Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
Forensic Entomologist, Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences, 1861 Old Spanish Trail, Houston, TX 77054.
J Med Entomol. 2017 Sep 1;54(5):1109-1115. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjx119.
Over the past several decades, there have been several strident exchanges regarding whether forensic entomologists estimate the postmortem interval (PMI), minimum PMI, or something else. During that time, there has been a proliferation of terminology reflecting this concern regarding "what we do." This has been a frustrating conversation for some in the community because much of this debate appears to be centered on what assumptions are acknowledged directly and which are embedded within a list of assumptions (or ignored altogether) in the literature and in case reports. An additional component of the conversation centers on a concern that moving away from the use of certain terminology like PMI acknowledges limitations and problems that would make the application of entomology appear less useful in court-a problem for lawyers, but one that should not be problematic for scientists in the forensic entomology community, as uncertainty is part of science that should and can be presented effectively in the courtroom (e.g., population genetic concepts in forensics). Unfortunately, a consequence of the way this conversation is conducted is that even as all involved in the debate acknowledge the concerns of their colleagues, parties continue to talk past one another advocating their preferred terminology. Progress will not be made until the community recognizes that all of the terms under consideration take the form of null hypothesis statements and that thinking about "what we do" as a null hypothesis has useful legal and scientific ramifications that transcend arguments over the usage of preferred terminology.
在过去几十年里,关于法医昆虫学家是在估计死后间隔时间(PMI)、最短PMI还是其他什么,已经有过几次激烈的交流。在此期间,反映对“我们所做之事”这种担忧的术语大量涌现。对该领域的一些人来说,这是一场令人沮丧的讨论,因为这场辩论的许多内容似乎集中在哪些假设是被直接认可的,哪些是隐含在文献和案例报告中的假设列表里(或者被完全忽略)。讨论的另一个核心问题是,有人担心摒弃像PMI这样的特定术语会承认一些局限性和问题,从而使昆虫学在法庭上的应用显得不那么有用——这对律师来说是个问题,但对法医昆虫学界的科学家来说不应成为问题,因为不确定性是科学的一部分,应该并且能够在法庭上有效呈现(例如法医领域的群体遗传学概念)。不幸的是,这场讨论的进行方式导致的结果是,即使参与辩论的各方都承认同事们的担忧,但各方仍各说各话,坚持自己偏好的术语。在该领域认识到所有正在考虑的术语都采取零假设陈述的形式,并且将“我们所做之事”视为零假设具有超越关于偏好术语使用争论的有用法律和科学影响之前,不会取得进展。