Tag Archives: Mark Brown

Using comic books to explain forensic science in court

Leave a reply
Caption: The cover of Understanding Forensic DNA analysis booklet. Credit: Comic credit: artist Mark Brown Funding credit: Leverhulme Trust and Arts Council England Courtesy: SISSA MediaLab

A February 5, 2025 news item on phys.org describes science communication intended for the courtroom,

Imagine being summoned as a juror in a murder trial. The expert responsible for analyzing DNA traces at the crime scene has just explained that they match the defendant’s profile. “Then the culprit must be them,” you think.

At this point, however, the expert adds, “The sample, however, is partially degraded.” What does this mean? How does this information affect your judgment? The scientist further explains that there is a one-in-a-billion probability that other people could match the identified genetic profile. How significant is this new information? Is this probability high or negligible? What is your verdict now?

“The decisions being taken by members of juries are just so vitally important and often they’re shaped by their understanding of the forensic evidence that’s being presented,” explains Dr. Andy Ridgway, Senior Lecturer in Science Communication at the University of the West of England, UWE Bristol, and one of the study’s authors of a study appearing in the Journal of Science Communication (JCOM).

“They often have little to no science background and frequently lack prior knowledge of the forensic techniques they are expected to assess in making their decision.” This is a widespread issue, and scientific literature on the subject suggests that understanding of science in courtrooms is often quite limited.

…

A February 5, 2025 SISSA MediaLab press release on EurekAlert, which originated the news item, provides a little more information,

The Evidence Chamber, the project within which the research described in JCOM was developed, was created precisely to explore how non-experts understand scientific evidence in judicial proceedings, combining forensic science, digital technology, and public engagement. The Evidence Chamber was developed by the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Dundee (Scotland) in collaboration with Fast Familiar, a collective of digital artists specializing in interactive experiences. A team from UWE Bristol, including Izzy Baxter, a student studying for an MSc Science Communication at the time, was involved in analyzing the data collected during the research phase aimed at testing the use of comics as a tool for communicating forensic science.

The study involved about a hundred volunteers who participated as ‘jurors’ in mock trials. The participants participated in an interactive experience that involved different types of evidence; they listened to the expert witness testimony, which focused on DNA analysis and gait analysis (the study of a suspect’s walking pattern for identification). The jury discussion took place in two phases: “First, they received the expert witness testimony. They then discussed it and indicated whether they believed the defendant was guilty or not guilty at that point. After that, they were given access to the comics,” explains Heather Doran, researcher at the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science, University of Dundee, who was involved in the study. “This allowed us to see how the comics might influence their previous discussion and whether they provided any useful additional information.”

“We conducted an analysis of the discussions among jurors, one immediately after the expert testimony in court and another after they had read the comics,” explains Ridgway. To assess whether comics provided an advantage in comprehension, during the experimental phases, one group received only the traditional expert testimony, while the other had access to both the expert’s explanation and the comics.

The analysis confirmed the effectiveness of comics: participants who read the comics discussed the evidence in greater detail, showing increased confidence in their reasoning and conclusions. In the group that read the comics, jurors made more explicit references to scientific concepts and demonstrated a better ability to connect forensic science to their final decision. In contrast, in the groups that received only the oral explanation, more misinterpretations of the evidence emerged, with misunderstandings related to the meaning of probability and margins of error, whereas the comics helped clarify these concepts. Additionally, discussions in the groups with comics were more balanced and participatory, with greater interaction among jurors.

This experience demonstrates that comics can be a valuable tool for explaining forensic science in court, supporting jurors. It is important to emphasize that this type of material must be carefully designed. The scientific comics used in The Evidence Chamber were developed by specialists at the University of Dundee. “The University of Dundee has an historical link with comics, we worked with our Professor of Comics Studies and artists to create them” explains Doran. “Dundee, the city where the centre is located, has a history in comics. It’s the home of Beano the comic and Dennis the Menace. And the University of Dundee also offers comic courses, with which we have been collaborating for a long time.”

I’m not sure how SISSA MediaLab is involved (other than having issued the press release) but I do have a little more by SISSA (International School for Advanced Studies; [Italian: Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati]), which owns the MediaLab. See the International School for Advanced Studies Wikipedia entry for more about the school.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper mentioned in the press release,

Can science comics aid lay audiences’ comprehension of forensic science? by Isabelle Baxter, Andy Ridgway, Heather Doran, Niamh Nic Daeid, Rachel Briscoe, Joe McAlister, Daniel Barnard. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication Volume 24 Issue number 1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.24010201 Published – 4 Feb 2025

This paper is open access and it can also be found here on the University of Dundee (Scotland) publications webpage for “Can science comics aid lay audiences’ comprehension of forensic science?“

You can find the DNA forensics comic book and others on the University of Dundee Understanding Forensic Science Comics project webspace. As for the University of Dundee’s Evidence Chamber, look here.

Robot artists—should they get copyright protection

1 Reply

Clearly a lawyer wrote this June 26, 2017 essay on theconversation.com (Note: A link has been removed),

When a group of museums and researchers in the Netherlands unveiled a portrait entitled The Next Rembrandt, it was something of a tease to the art world. It wasn’t a long lost painting but a new artwork generated by a computer that had analysed thousands of works by the 17th-century Dutch artist Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn.

The computer used something called machine learning [emphasis mine] to analyse and reproduce technical and aesthetic elements in Rembrandt’s works, including lighting, colour, brush-strokes and geometric patterns. The result is a portrait produced based on the styles and motifs found in Rembrandt’s art but produced by algorithms.

…

But who owns creative works generated by artificial intelligence? This isn’t just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author.

This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn’t protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world.

Unlike with earlier computer-generated works of art, machine learning software generates truly creative works without human input or intervention. AI is not just a tool. While humans program the algorithms, the decision making – the creative spark – comes almost entirely from the machine.

It could have been someone involved in the technology but nobody with that background would write “… something called machine learning … .”  Andres Guadamuz, lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Sussex, goes on to say (Note: Links have been removed),

Unlike with earlier computer-generated works of art, machine learning software generates truly creative works without human input or intervention. AI is not just a tool. While humans program the algorithms, the decision making – the creative spark – comes almost entirely from the machine.

That doesn’t mean that copyright should be awarded to the computer, however. Machines don’t (yet) have the rights and status of people under the law. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there shouldn’t be any copyright either. Not all copyright is owned by individuals, after all.

Companies are recognised as legal people and are often awarded copyright for works they don’t directly create. This occurs, for example, when a film studio hires a team to make a movie, or a website commissions a journalist to write an article. So it’s possible copyright could be awarded to the person (company or human) that has effectively commissioned the AI to produce work for it.

…

 

Things are likely to become yet more complex as AI tools are more commonly used by artists and as the machines get better at reproducing creativity, making it harder to discern if an artwork is made by a human or a computer. Monumental advances in computing and the sheer amount of computational power becoming available may well make the distinction moot. At that point, we will have to decide what type of protection, if any, we should give to emergent works created by intelligent algorithms with little or no human intervention.

The most sensible move seems to follow those countries that grant copyright to the person who made the AI’s operation possible, with the UK’s model looking like the most efficient. This will ensure companies keep investing in the technology, safe in the knowledge they will reap the benefits. What happens when we start seriously debating whether computers should be given the status and rights of people is a whole other story.

The team that developed a ‘new’ Rembrandt produced a video about the process,

Mark Brown’s April 5, 2016 article abut this project (which was unveiled on April 5, 2017 in Amsterdam, Netherlands) for the Guardian newspaper provides more detail such as this,

It [Next Rembrandt project] is the result of an 18-month project which asks whether new technology and data can bring back to life one of the greatest, most innovative painters of all time.

Advertising executive [Bas] Korsten, whose brainchild the project was, admitted that there were many doubters. “The idea was greeted with a lot of disbelief and scepticism,” he said. “Also coming up with the idea is one thing, bringing it to life is another.”

The project has involved data scientists, developers, engineers and art historians from organisations including Microsoft, Delft University of Technology, the Mauritshuis in The Hague and the Rembrandt House Museum in Amsterdam.

The final 3D printed painting consists of more than 148 million pixels and is based on 168,263 Rembrandt painting fragments.

Some of the challenges have been in designing a software system that could understand Rembrandt based on his use of geometry, composition and painting materials. A facial recognition algorithm was then used to identify and classify the most typical geometric patterns used to paint human features.

It sounds like it was a fascinating project but I don’t believe ‘The Next Rembrandt’ is an example of AI creativity or an example of the ‘creative spark’ Guadamuz discusses. This seems more like the kind of work  that could be done by a talented forger or fraudster. As I understand it, even when a human creates this type of artwork (a newly discovered and unknown xxx masterpiece), the piece is not considered a creative work in its own right. Some pieces are outright fraudulent and others which are described as “in the manner of xxx.”

Taking a somewhat different approach to mine, Timothy Geigner at Techdirt has also commented on the question of copyright and AI in relation to Guadamuz’s essay in a July 7, 2017 posting,

Unlike with earlier computer-generated works of art, machine learning software generates truly creative works without human input or intervention. AI is not just a tool. While humans program the algorithms, the decision making – the creative spark – comes almost entirely from the machine.

Let’s get the easy part out of the way: the culminating sentence in the quote above is not true. The creative spark is not the artistic output. Rather, the creative spark has always been known as the need to create in the first place. This isn’t a trivial quibble, either, as it factors into the simple but important reasoning for why AI and machines should certainly not receive copyright rights on their output.

That reasoning is the purpose of copyright law itself. Far too many see copyright as a reward system for those that create art rather than what it actually was meant to be: a boon to an artist to compensate for that artist to create more art for the benefit of the public as a whole. Artificial intelligence, however far progressed, desires only what it is programmed to desire. In whatever hierarchy of needs an AI might have, profit via copyright would factor either laughably low or not at all into its future actions. Future actions of the artist, conversely, are the only item on the agenda for copyright’s purpose. If receiving a copyright wouldn’t spur AI to create more art beneficial to the public, then copyright ought not to be granted.

…

Geigner goes on (July 7, 2017 posting) to elucidate other issues with the ideas expressed in the general debates of AI and ‘rights’ and the EU’s solution.