Does image editing improve the quality of latent prints? An analysis of image-editing techniques in one crime laboratory.

Field research within latent print comparison has remained sparse in the context of an otherwise growing body of literature examining the discipline. Studies examining how ACE-V procedures are implemented within active crime laboratories are especially lacking in light of research suggesting significant variability in examiner practices despite standardized ACE-V procedures. To date, no studies have examined a potentially important aspect of the Analysis phase: digital image editing. We provide information on the prevalence and types of latent print image editing within one laboratory (i.e., Houston Forensic Science Center), examine the potential effect of image editing on objective print quality and clarity (i.e., LQMetrics scores), and explore potential examiner differences in editing effectiveness. Results indicate that most latent prints are edited in some manner, and that image editing improves the quality and clarity of print images as defined by an objective quality metric, although examiners varied in their ability to improve the clarity of print images. Findings suggest that formal guidance or documentation of standard editing procedures would likely improve the reliability of examiner conclusions early in the latent print comparison process.

Time trends, factors associated with, and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A massive online survey of US adults from January-May 2021.

IMPORTANCE: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has become a leading barrier to increasing the US vaccination rate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate time trends in COVID-19 vaccine intent during the US vaccine rollout, and identify key factors related to and self-reported reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in May 2021. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A COVID-19 survey was offered to US adult Facebook users in several languages yielding 5,088,772 qualifying responses from January 6 to May 31, 2021. Data was aggregated by month. Survey weights matched the sample to the age, gender, and state profile of the US population. EXPOSURE: Demographics, geographic factors, political/COVID-19 environment, health status, beliefs, and behaviors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: "If a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 were offered to you today, would you choose to get vaccinated." Hesitant was defined as responding probably or definitely would not choose to get vaccinated (versus probably or definitely would, or already vaccinated). RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy decreased by one-third from 25.4% (95%CI, 25.3, 25.5) in January to 16.6% (95% CI, 16.4, 16.7) in May, with relatively large decreases among participants with Black, Pacific Islander or Hispanic race/ethnicity and ≤high school education. Independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy in May (N = 525,644) included younger age, non-Asian race, < 4 year college degree, living in a more rural county, living in a county with higher Trump vote share in the 2020 election, lack of worry about COVID-19, working outside the home, never intentionally avoiding contact with others, and no past-year flu vaccine. Differences in hesitancy by race/ethnicity varied by age (e.g., Black adults more hesitant than White adults <35 years old, but less hesitant among adults ≥45 years old). Differences in hesitancy by age varied by race/ethnicity. Almost half of vaccine hesitant respondents reported fear of side effects (49.2% [95%CI, 48.7, 49.7]) and not trusting the COVID-19 vaccine (48.4% [95%CI, 48.0, 48.9]); over one-third reported not trusting the government, not needing the vaccine, and waiting to see if safe. Reasons differed by degree of vaccine intent and by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy varied by demographics, geography, beliefs, and behaviors, indicating a need for a range of messaging and policy options to target high-hesitancy groups.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy January-May 2021 among 18-64 year old US adults by employment and occupation.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy threatens pandemic control efforts. We evaluated vaccine hesitancy in the US by employment status and occupation category during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. US adults 18-64 years completed an online COVID-19 survey 3,179,174 times from January 6-May 19, 2021. Data was aggregated by month. Survey weights matched the sample to the US population age, gender, and state profile. Weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Changes in vaccine hesitancy from January-May varied widely by employment status (e.g., -7.8% [95%CI, -8.2 - -7.5] among those working outside the home, a 26.6% decrease; -13.3% [95%CI, -13.7 - -13.0] among those not working for pay, a 44.9% decrease), and occupation category (e.g., -15.9% [95%CI, -17.7 - -14.2] in production, a 39.3% decrease; -1.4% [95%CI, -3.8 - -1.0] in construction/extraction, a 3.0% decrease). April 20-May 19, 2021, vaccine hesitancy ranged from 7.3% (95%CI, 6.7 - 7.8) in computer/mathematical professions to 45.2% (95%CI, 43.2-46.8) in construction/extraction. Hesitancy was 9.0% (95%CI, 8.6-9.3) among educators and 14.5% (95%CI, 14.0-15.0) among healthcare practitioners/technicians. While the prevalence of reasons for hesitancy differed by occupation, over half of employed hesitant participants reported concern about side effects (51.7%) and not trusting COVID-19 vaccines (51.3%), whereas only 15.0% didn't like vaccines in general. Over a third didn't believe they needed the vaccine, didn't trust the government, and/or were waiting to see if it was safe. In this massive national survey of adults 18-64 years, vaccine hesitancy varied widely by occupation. Reasons for hesitancy indicate messaging about safety and addressing trust are paramount.

Implementing blind proficiency testing in forensic laboratories: Motivation, obstacles, and recommendations.

Regular proficiency testing of forensic examiners is required at accredited laboratories and widely accepted as an important component of a functioning quality assurance program. Yet, unlike in other testing industries, the majority of forensic laboratories testing programs rely entirely on declared proficiency tests. Some laboratories, primarily federal forensic facilities, have adopted blind proficiency tests, which are also used in the medical and drug testing industries. Blind tests offer advantages. They must resemble actual cases, can test the entire laboratory pipeline, avoid changes in behavior from an examiner knowing they are being tested, and are one of the only methods that can detect misconduct. However, the forensic context present both logistical and cultural obstacles to the implementation of blind proficiency tests. In November 2018, we convened a meeting of directors and quality assurance managers of local and state laboratories to discuss obstacles to the adoption of blind testing and assess successful and potential strategies to overcome them. Here, we compare the situation in forensic science to other testing disciplines, identifying obstacles to the implementation of blind proficiency testing in forensic contexts, and proposing ways to address those issues and increase the ecological validity of proficiency tests at forensic laboratories.

The challenge of environmental regulation in India.

India's environmental regulations have become stronger in the 25 years since Bhopal, but enforcing them remains a challenge.