就法医科学研究的关键学科和整个社会而言，美国国家科学院的法医科学报告阐述了在所有可能的领域(NAS 285)中未来道路的要求。从一开始，法医科学系统的压力就被阐明了。强调要求之间的鲜明对比的真实性的证据,已经负担过重的系统压力,坚定的需要更好的基础设施,研究基金,贯有科学素养的人员(231年NAS)和增加系统的整体能力的有效处理大量积压的情况下,已经提出(NAS 39)。鉴于法医科学证据在诉讼中法律地位和科学、具体的例子的司法性情被引用,如强调更高的审查时,DNA测试是唯一的证据,建议消除与药物识别相关的不确定性,和指纹识别的概念证据回荡接受作为“强有力的证据”,尽管社区专家质疑自己的有效性在几个时刻(NAS 86)。此外，根据科学方法的基本原则，对刑事审判中法医证据的依赖进行了研究和解释，这不仅对这一特定学科有效，而且在科学界具有一致的共识。该报告正确地强调了降低测量误差、错误率和偏差来源的重要性。在接触了各个子学科(NAS 127)的描述后，提出了改进方法、实践和表现的范围，其中包括系统地开发新方法，更好地在各相关领域和更高层次的社区间对话(NAS 183)之间进行交流。
As far as the crucial discipline of Forensic Science Studies and the Community as a whole are concerned, the Report on Forensic Science by the National Academy of Sciences, elaborates the requirements that would course its future path in all conceivable realms (NAS 285). At the very outset, the pressures on the Forensic Science System have been elucidated. Highlighting the stark contrast between the demands for ‘authenticity of evidence’ and added pressure on the already overburdened systems, the staunch need for better infrastructure, research-funding, scientifically-trained personnel (NAS 231) and increasing the overall capacity of the system to efficiently handle the massive backlog of cases, has been put forth (NAS 39). Given the prominence of Forensic Science Evidence in Litigation Law and Science, specific examples of Judicial Dispositions have been cited, such as the emphasis on higher scrutiny when DNA Testing is the sole evidence, suggestions for eliminating the uncertainty associated with Drug Identification, and the notion of Fingerprints Identification Evidence reverberating acceptance as ‘strong evidence’ despite the community experts themselves questioning their validity at several junctures (NAS 86). Furthermore, the reliance of Forensic Evidences in Criminal Trials has been studied and interpreted, based on the basic principles of the scientific method, which is not just valid for this particular discipline but has uniform consensus amongst the scientific community. The report rightfully highlights the importance of going down to the basics like measurement errors, error rates and sources of bias. After touching upon the descriptions of various sub-disciplines (NAS 127), the scope of improving methods, practice and performance have been laid out, which include the systematic development of new methodology, better interface between the various inter-related fields and higher level of inter-community discourse (NAS 183).