Forensic science is one of the most trusted parts of the justice system. People see DNA, fingerprints, and digital evidence as solid proof. On television, these results come back quickly, neatly solving crimes in under an hour. But Brian Gestring, who has spent more than thirty years in the field, has shown that the truth is more complicated.
He calls it a quality crisis. The issue is not whether the science works. The problem is how it is carried out. In other critical industries like aviation or nuclear power, there are standards that must be followed and regulators that ensure they are. There are standards in forensic science, but providers have the option of following them and there is no central authority over all the providers.
Many labs still operate under law enforcement agencies and are led by non-scientists. Training is uneven, and staff are not always required to take regular tests that show they can do their work correctly. Even the basic rules for how evidence is collected, stored, and reported are not the same everywhere.
The result is a field where the reliability of results can change depending on which lab does the work.
Building Systems of Accountability and Expanding the Application of Science
Much of Gestring’s career has been devoted to fixing those weak points. He has worked in, supervised and managed some of the largest and busiest crime labs in the country, overseeing teams under pressure to deliver answers in difficult high-profile cases.
He has also implemented significant reforms. Under Gestring’s leadership, New York became the first state to implement a statewide approach to crime laboratory backlog management. Under this new system, each lab in the state was able to benefit when one lab had developed a new strategy. Gestring also changed the way that the State monitored backlogs and was able to encourage labs with more successful management strategies through state grants.
Through Gestring’s tireless advocacy, New York became the only jurisdiction to adopt the National Academies of Sciences 2009 recommendation on standardized forensic reports. Those standards are now posted on a forward-facing website run by the state and all 22 laboratories in the state have changed their operations to comply with them.
He is also a tireless advocate for developing new methods to use physical evidence to solve crimes. He was the first to testify to the application of partial match DNA in New York State and coordinated the state’s adoption of familial DNA searching. Both of these techniques have been instrumental in closing cases that were so old that the victim’s families had given up hope of ever seeing justice.
Teaching the Science and the Responsibility
For Gestring, teaching has always been central to his career. As a practitioner he taught workshops for federal, state, and local law enforcement, prosecutors, and forensic professionals. He also worked as an academic teaching undergraduate and graduate coursework, directing a university forensic science program and conducting forensic science research. He believes the field will only improve if the next generation is better prepared than the last. Validating that point, many of his former students are now supervisors and executives in forensic laboratories around the country.
An Invisible Crisis
Despite these efforts, Gestring has never ignored the flaws that still exist. He explains that accreditation is often misunderstood. It is not proof of excellence. It’s more like the sign that says,“you have to be this tall to get on this ride.” Disciplines like DNA incentivize accreditation since you must be accredited to access the national DNA databank. But other critical disciplines like fingerprint comparisons, firearms examinations or digital evidence often ignore this critical step often leading to failures.
In 2008, the Detroit’s police lab was forced to shut down. The lab had elected to only accredit their DNA section which is the least a provider can do to still access the DNA database. When problems were identified in the work of their unaccredited firearms unit, the subsequent investigation revealed systemic problems that affected all the work of the entire lab.
In one high profile case in Florida, flawed digital evidence likely resulted in acquittal. A digital examiner had reported that the defendant had searched for “chloroform” 84 times. The creator of the software the examiner used later demonstrated that the defendant had actually searched for “myspace” 84 times
National reports have raised alarms before. The National Academy of Sciences in 2009 and the National Commission on Forensic Science in 2015 both called for stronger oversight and universal accreditation. Yet both efforts faded. Without strong incentives, many providers simply carried on as before.
A Practical Model for Reform
Gestring argues that reform must combine two things: infrastructure and incentives.
Infrastructure means giving labs the support they need, training, grants, and model documents.
Incentives involve tying federal funding to compliance, so providers have a reason to meet standards.
The CODIS DNA databank shows how this works. When CODIS launched in 1998, the FBI required labs to be accredited before they could access it. At the same time, it offered training and guidance to help labs reach that level. The mix of help and consequences raised the quality of DNA work across the country.
Compare that to efforts on biological evidence preservation policies. Federal agencies offered guidance and resources, but no consequences for states that failed to follow through. Even New York, the purported birthplace of the actual innocence movement, failed to take any action without any incentives.
Gestring has proposed a five-year plan modeled on CODIS but applied to the entire forensic field. It begins with training and internal audits. Over time, providers add proficiency testing, corrective actions, and external audits. By year four, labs wouldbe applying for accreditation. By year five, all providers would either be accredited or face limits on federal funding.
Speaking to the Next Generation
When Gestring talks about the future of forensic science, he does not focus only on new technology. His attention is on the people who will lead the field.
His years in the classroom shaped this outlook.
Gestring created the forensic science program at Pace University and is a past president of the Council of Forensic Science Educators. He has been a site evaluator for the Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission since its inception. He joined the faculty at Cedar Crest College when they added their graduate program.
Beyond the classroom, Gestring has shared his thinking through research papers and policy publications.
He has written about quality assurance, backlog management, and accreditation, often pointing out the gap between how people see forensic science and how it really functions in practice.
More recently, he has reached a wider audience through his Fixing Forensics YouTube series. These videos break down complicated issues in ways that students, practitioners, and even the general public can understand. For students, the channel offers a chance to learn how an expert thinks through problems. For policymakers, it provides practical solutions they can act on.
The common theme across all these efforts is clear. Forensic science is not glamorous. It is not about dramatic courtroom reveals or television-style breakthroughs. It is about building reliable systems, case after case, and holding yourself to standards even when no one is watching. Recognition may not always come, but the strength of the work is what lasts.
For Gestring, that sense of responsibility is the only way forward. If the next generation accepts it, the invisible crisis can finally be addressed, and forensic science can deliver the consistency and reliability that justice demands.
Carrying the Work Forward
Today, Brian Gestring continues his consulting through 4n6Services. In addition to forensic casework, he advises on backlog reduction, quality assurance, and systemic reform. He writes policy articles, presents at national meetings, and evaluates forensic programs. His career now spans the lab, the classroom, and the policy table, giving him a rare ability to speak across all three.
His influence is clear in statewide projects, in classrooms where he has taught, and in national discussions about reform. But for Gestring, the work has never been about recognition. It has always been about making sure forensic science delivers what the public expects: results that can be trusted.
The future of the field rests in the hands of today’s students. If they carry forward the lessons Gestring has spent his career teaching through classes, publications, and even his YouTube series then forensic science will not just survive its invisible crisis, it will emerge stronger and more reliable, better prepared to serve the cause of justice.
Do you want to see more of Brian? Follow him on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and visit his website!
