Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40703144›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2025

Errors in toxicology testing and the need for full discovery.

Aaron Olson, Charles Ramsay

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Truth, power, and the crisis of forensic independence.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aaron OlsonARO Consulting LLC, PO Box 132, Hugo, MN, 55038, USA.
Charles RamsayCharles Ramsay, Ramsay Law Firm, PLLC, 2780 E Snelling Ser Dr Suite #330, Roseville, MN, 55113, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite toxicology's foundation in analytical chemistry and quantitative measurements, it remains vulnerable to errors that can impact criminal justice outcomes. This paper presents a review of notable errors in toxicology collected over a combined 48 years of field experience. We highlight cases of toxicology errors from across multiple jurisdictions, categorizing them by type: traceability errors, calibration errors, discovery violations, maintenance failures, source code defects, fraud, errors due to interfering substances, reporting errors, laboratory contamination, and chain of custody breaches. Our analysis reveals that many errors persisted for years before detection, with some lasting over a decade. Discovery often came from external sources rather than internal quality controls. Errors ranged from technical failures to deliberate misconduct, affecting thousands of cases. Notable patterns include institutional resistance to disclosure, retaliation against whistleblowers, and systematic withholding of exculpatory evidence. The compilation demonstrates vulnerabilities in toxicology. Key reforms needed include transparency through online discovery portals, mandatory retention of digital data, independent laboratory accreditation, whistleblower protections, and regular third-party audits. By examining past errors, the forensic science community can develop policies to prevent similar mistakes and enhance both scientific integrity and the pursuit of justice.

Indexed as

Breath alcohol testingCalibration errorsDiscovery violationsLaboratory misconductSource codeToxicology errorsWhistleblower retaliation

Identifiers

PMID40703144
PMCPMC12284658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.