Standards Impact

Standards and Forensics: Fact vs Fiction

February 07, 2024 ASTM International Season 2 Episode 1
Standards and Forensics: Fact vs Fiction
Standards Impact
More Info
Standards Impact
Standards and Forensics: Fact vs Fiction
Feb 07, 2024 Season 2 Episode 1
ASTM International

How close to reality is CSI? How have standards impacted the field of forensics?  Host Dave Walsh sits down with ASTM members and forensics experts Laura Hernandes (Verity Labs) and Agnes Winokur (DEA Southeast Laboratory) to separate the facts from the fiction.

Follow Us

Presented by ASTM International

Show Notes Transcript

How close to reality is CSI? How have standards impacted the field of forensics?  Host Dave Walsh sits down with ASTM members and forensics experts Laura Hernandes (Verity Labs) and Agnes Winokur (DEA Southeast Laboratory) to separate the facts from the fiction.

Follow Us

Presented by ASTM International

Dave Walsh (00:13):

Welcome to Standards impact, ASTM International's Official podcast. I'm Dave Walsh, editor in Chief of Standardization News, and today I'll be talking with Agnes Whitaker and Laura Hernandez, two experts on the topic of forensics. But before we get to that, let's go straight to SNS content editor JP IErvin for our standard spotlight segment.

JP Ervin (00:34):

In standard spotlight, we highlight interesting and influential ASTM standards that have bettered the world around us. Today we're looking at the consumer safety specification for toy safety designation. F963. F963 addresses potential toy hazards that may not be obvious to consumers or the broader public. The standard refers to a sizable range of toys, including pacifiers balls, yo-yos, and bath toys. It addresses many features of toys that might present hazards such as small parts, sharp edges, and materials like mercury lead and arsenic. F963 was revised in fall 2023. The new version addresses requirements for a variety of toy features, including materials, the sound level of toys, battery accessibility, and projectiles. Joan Lawrence, chair of the subcommittee on Toy Safety says that F963 is the gold standard according to Lawrence, the toy safety subcommittee quote brings together a multi-stakeholder expert group and has long led the world in its focus on risk-based data-driven safety standards for toys. Thanks to F963, consumers can be better informed and better equipped to keep their children safe.

Dave Walsh (01:52):

I'm joined now by Agnes Winokur, who is a lab director with the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Laura Hernandez, who's a forensic scientist with Verity Labs for many years now, people have associated the field of forensics with the hit show CSI, naturally, it's been very popular for decades. So that show focuses on cutting edge technologies that captivate viewers. What are some of the major technological advances that have been made in the field of forensics recently? And as a follow up, maybe you could tell us how much of that show is realistic in your opinions, but either one of you can take that question. It's open.

Agnes Winokur (02:25):

Uh, TV shows and movies, they show forensic science as solving, uh, almost every problem right in a matter of minutes. And this notion is not just a fantasy, but it's, uh, it's absolutely impossible. Uh, as times change, so do the forensic science disciplines. Uh, and, and these disciplines have to adapt to these changes. And as such, there's always an influx of new technologies that are coming in, uh, and, and, and new and new methodologies as well. Uh, so there's even a greater need now for standard development because, because with this new technology, you know, what are the limitations? How do we implement them? How, how do they relate to the forensic science disciplines? All of this can be addressed through standardization and forensic sciences can get strengthened by those developments.

Laura Hernandez (03:13):

I think I would add that, um, you know, one of the things that's really increased in the last decade or two is our understanding of what is expected from, excuse me, from forensic sciences. Um, things like our quality assurance and validation I know has really increased over the years. And one of the things that you never see on those TV shows is the sheer amount of paperwork that we end up having to do, you know, to make sure that our instruments are operating as we expect them to do, and that our, you know, staff are competent to perform the testing that they are doing. And again, you know, standards can play a really important part in helping us make sure that everybody is getting at, at least a consistent base level.

Dave Walsh (03:55):

Yeah. So you've, you've mentioned the speed and, and quickness with which they get results. And then, you know, you're mentioning there's a lot of paperwork in the real world, but what about the, the technologies themselves that are depicted on the show? Are they showing anything that science fiction as far as you know, or, or are those those kinds of, uh, technologies realistic?

Agnes Winokur (04:13):

Well, some, sometimes the tech, the technology that they're showing to do a certain result's, not always accurate. I mean, a certain technique may not give those results, uh, or at least not the way they're being portrayed in that specific, you know, TV show or that scene, uh, is the technique itself. That particular technology and instrumentation may exist, but not necessarily to give the results that they're showing.

Dave Walsh (04:37):

Well, all right. So that's, that's kind of a little background on, on the popularity of forensics and pop culture today. But, um, within your field, uh, you know, with people in the know, with people who are experts like yourselves, what are some of the biggest issues and challenges that are facing your field right now? I mean, are they technology related? You wish you had, uh, you know, greater levels of detection, or are they, are they involved with speed and detecting things faster? What, what are the issues that you face, uh, and that you see as the most important?

Laura Hernandez (05:05):

I would say that from my standpoint, um, I see that there's a lot of issues in making sure that we have standards that are able to be used by all types of laboratories. So, um, small laboratories that maybe only have a couple people to large out laboratories that have hundreds of people, those that meet the needs of maybe county or city or state or federal labs versus, you know, private labs, which, um, maybe are not so geographically bound. Um, the entrance of public and private and criminal and civil litigation, you know, all of those use the standards for forensic sciences and making sure that you balance the needs for all of them and are, you know, pushing the industry towards better quality, um, is definitely a challenge that, that we routinely bump into in the E 30 committee.

Agnes Winokur (05:51):

I think Laura just made a very good point. You know, different forensic laboratories have different capabilities. Uh, so what happens when you don't have a certain technique or a certain, uh, technology available to you? What, what can you use? You still have that need in your community to do the forensic analysis. So how do you approach that? How do you solve that problem? And that's one of the things that we're trying to provide right through our standards. Uh, if you have one technique versus another one, you know, what are the capabilities you have and how do you address, uh, the needs of forensic science with the instrumentation available to you, with the methodologies available to you as a laboratory?

Dave Walsh (06:33):

And that was the question that I had next on my mind, which is, you know, you've discussed these challenges and mentioned some of the things facing your field. How will standards, uh, help meet those challenges? And, and maybe you could discuss some of the specific either work items or standards that are, that are on the way

Agnes Winokur (06:50):

E 30 forensic science standards. They, they not only provide guidance, um, but they also provide requirements. And, uh, you know, some standards we do this either through standard guides or standard, uh, practices or standard test methods and, you know, list what, what type of instrumentation, what type of, uh, reagents may be needed, um, so that there's many different options available for that laboratory to be able to turn to which standard they need to turn to in order to meet their needs. Uh, you know, I'll, I'll give you an example is, uh, uh, A-S-T-M-E 2329, which is the standard practice for identification of these drugs. That's one of the most critical standards for the practice of cease drug analysis. So the standard itself addresses how an expert assesses, uh, and selects, which an analytical techniques to use in order to, uh, make their identifications and report them.

Agnes Winokur (07:47):

And that really also depends on the capabilities of their own laboratories. If we didn't have standards like E 2329, there, there will be no minimum criteria for the qualitative analysis of those drugs. You know, standards kind of ensure, uh, that there's scientifically supported approaches, uh, being used in forensic science that inspire public trust, um, and on the respective forensic results that are being produced, uh, you know, people's lives are affected by forensic science results and, and the respective testimonies. So we do have a responsibility as a forensic science community to not only develop, but also promote quality standards that strengthen forensic science practices and positively begin to shift forensic disciplines into standard standardization.

Dave Walsh (08:42):

Agnes, as you've been talking, I kind of developed a follow up question, because I know you've been with the DEA for many years, uh, over 25 years, if I'm, if I'm correct. Um, and so you probably remember a time when modern Technologies, as we know them in 2024, and the standards that you just described didn't exist. What, what was it like back then, compared to now? What was there, was there a huge difference in how things were done and how fast they were done, that kind of thing?

Agnes Winokur (09:06):

Oh, there, there's definitely been a difference, not, not only in 20, 25 years, but also in the last 10 years, in the last five years. It's amazing how much the field of, uh, forensics and, you know, specifically in my field for drug analysis, it's, it's day and night, how much it has changed from when I first started. And as such, you know, there, there's definitely a need for standardization and that that change, you know, that need is from the landscape of illicit drugs itself, changing with the times. It, it makes that requirement that you, you know, forensics has to adapt to be able to analyze novel psychoactive substances. Um, so we, we, you know, and that's I think in all forensic disciplines, they have to adapt with, with changes and times.

Dave Walsh (09:52):

Well, and Laura, I saw you nodding your head so we can get to the, the question about, um, how the standards being developed in E 30 will help, but you were nodding your head about how times have changed. Uh, uh, how have you seen things change just in the last 2010 or 20 years?

Laura Hernandez (10:05):

Um, all over. So not just in these drugs where not only are we having to deal with, um, new substances, and how do I distinguish an isomer that is controlled from one that isn't? Um, it's also things like measurement of uncertainty, which was new probably around the early 2010s, 2012, where the field was having to understand, you know, how reliable are their measurements they're using in a very real aspect as opposed to just putting a number on a report. But it exists, you know, it actually goes beyond just these drugs to all of the disciplines. Our understanding of what is required by our stakeholders for quality assurance. What does it mean to validate a method? Those are all things that have, our knowledge base has just expanded so much in what's expected of us. And, and coincidentally, those standards also have had to adapt over the years.

Laura Hernandez (10:55):

I know in my, one of my specialties fire debris we're currently re balloting changes for E 1618. It's one of the fire debris standards that almost every fire debris lab uses. And what we're doing is looking at, you know, what kind of research has come out in the last 20 or so years since, you know, it was rewritten in 2001, and what, um, what do we need for instrument maintenance and performance criteria, and what are we using to actually come up with a classification? And we're folding in not just information on the literature and research that's been out in the field, but we also have a large repository in a public database that have ignitable liquids that we can pull on that we didn't have back, you know, years ago. And we're also looking at, you know, when, um, science is used incorrectly in a courtroom, in a post-conviction case, like what happened? What led to that misidentification or that misattribution that contributed to that, that wrongful conviction and trying to use those criteria to get better, um, information to analysts in the field.

Agnes Winokur (12:01):

I think one of the things that have really shaped how much forensics has been changing is actually standard development. I'm gonna, I'm gonna tell you why, is because we are doing such a push to invite collaboration, to invite different perspectives that it really challenges all of us, all practitioners, researchers, industry representatives, statisticians, everyone. We're inviting them in the legal community to come in and look at forensic science with all the same goal, which is to strengthen the practice of forensic science, you know, inspire, increase that trust on those results that we are producing. And when you start getting everybody in the table, that is so powerful because now we're looking at forensic science through so many different perspectives. So that's why you are getting standards on method validation and quality assurance and uncertainty, because we have statisticians there on the table talking to us. Uh, so when we're doing consensus based standards, you know, that is just amazing. And that is one of the, I think, the most significant drivers with changes in forensic sciences. Would you agree, Laura?

Laura Hernandez (13:15):

I was actually raising my hand to just say that the same thing. Uh, collaboration is actually one of the things that within the E 30, we've been doing a lot more of having to step outside of your own perception of what you were doing and why you're doing it, to look at it from maybe the viewpoint of a judge or an attorney, or maybe it's a, a proficiency test manufacturer, or, um, somebody else who is a quality assurance or a lab director, and use their questions, comments, or concerns to see whether or not a change needs to be made to a standard that's gonna affect somebody on the bench or, you know, an entire department is something that's really been beneficial and it really helps you understand what you're doing from a broader standpoint.

Dave Walsh (13:58):

Well, in the process of these answers, you've, you've both mentioned a few things, which is, um, that there are more substances to detect than ever today that there are, uh, you know, more legal considerations possible, maybe not more, but different legal considerations. Is the science of forensics getting further ahead of, of, I wanna say the criminal element. But, uh, I mean, is it getting easier or harder? Are you getting further ahead or are you falling further behind?

Laura Hernandez (14:23):

I think in my head, I am gonna say that we're defining the, the parameters of forensic science a little bit better. We're giving it a, you know, meaningful understanding of what is expected of us. Um, and when new technologies or new techniques or new sciences come into play now we're able to stop and say, let's make sure that it's reliable before we start using it in a courtroom.

Dave Walsh (14:45):

Yeah, that makes sense. What, uh, what would you say to that, Agnes?

Agnes Winokur (14:49):

I, I, it's definitely been, uh, forensic science is getting, uh, stronger absolutely through the years. And I think it comes from, uh, those, those different collaborations and perspectives, because we're now addressing things that maybe we weren't thinking of before as a community, as a forensic science community, but now we are, and we are not just thinking about them and discussing them, but we are developing standards and criteria and, and guidance, and that's, uh, you know, that's what we needed to do as a community. Uh, so I think it's definitely been improving through the years, and I think it will continue to improve.

Dave Walsh (15:28):

Well, one question that we've been asking all of our guests, and, um, the answer may seem obvious to you and, and to others who may be experts, but for a lay person who's not familiar with the field, I mean, outside of the field of CSI and watching fiction on tv, they probably don't know a lot about what you do every day and, and the testing that goes on and the standards being developed. Why should the average person care about the field of forensics? And I'll let, uh, Laura go first

Laura Hernandez (15:53):

Because you're really going to want us to understand what we're doing and be very confident in our results when they show up in a courtroom. Um, this is something that is gonna affect a, maybe not a large percentage of the population. I'm not trying to imply that everyone's going in front of court, but, um, having well run, you know, robust standards that makes sure that the industry is following accepted practices does have a significant impact on everybody within a community.

Dave Walsh (16:20):

And what about you, Agnes?

Agnes Winokur (16:23):

Because, uh, I think, uh, forensic sciences affect lives, it affects us all. Uh, so it is of interest to every single person. We need to all have a feel that there is a stake for all of us so that we can support it. We can, you know, encourage these organizations like A STM to give the time and the, uh, resources necessary for forensic scientists and other stakeholders coming together, uh, to strengthen forensic science practices. But at the end of the day, you know, uh, what we're doing is for the public is for our communities and our families and our friends and everything we want. The what forensic scientists are saying as expert witnesses in the courtroom up in that stand and presenting the results. We want that to be of the most highly reliable and scientifically supported information that we're able to do. Um, and in order to do this, we need to give it time and, and resources.

Agnes Winokur (17:26):

We need to develop those standards. We need to give it attention, we need to discuss it, we need to ask the, the tough questions, and we need to have the, the difficult discussions, uh, and sometimes uncomfortable, but we need to have them. Uh, so one of the things that I really love about A STM, about all these collaborations and all these different perspectives coming together is that you're actually producing something that is much greater than any one individual can really produce. And it's very powerful and, and just so impactful. At the end of the day, we're just stronger together and we can develop standards that have the most impact to forensic science in the United States and, and globally. And ultimately, what does that do? What does that, how does that relate? It increases the public trust and ultimately, uh, you know, that public safety, there's a public safety component to it, in my opinion.

Laura Hernandez (18:25):

And I was just gonna add in there that, you know, it's really easy to associate forensics with, you know, criminal cases and criminal justice, but it also impacts the civil side. So the testing that we do can show up in all kinds of civil litigation as well. So it's, you know, doubly important that we have a firm grasp in how to perform our testing and making sure we've got competent and trained, um, scientists in the field performing the testing.

Dave Walsh (18:52):

Yeah, and Laura, that you just kind of touched on a question I was going to ask as well. Um, and it's, it's sort of an open-ended question. I I've asked es before, what's something about your field that the average person might not be aware of? And I think you kind of touched on something just then where there are other applications of forensic science in other areas of the world. But, but that is my basic question. What's something that people might not be aware of with regard to the field of forensics?

Laura Hernandez (19:15):

Again, like, I do think that in my head when I hear forensics, it usually ties, you know, pretty intently to criminal, but it also does impact a lot of the civil stuff. And there's a lot of testing that's going on that never even makes it to a courtroom that's being used. And so it's a little bit surprising to see how often the testing is actually used, whether it, you know, is actually entered into a courtroom or not. And there's a lot of places where I think we can improve and a lot of places where we need to be clearer on what our limitations are and qualitate those a little more effectively. And I think one of the things moving forward is if you're gonna be in forensics, you should have this drive to continue to learn. 'cause I think the minute we stop learning and start, you know, stop trying to push our knowledge base and understanding is the point at which we need to step back and hand the reins over to the next generation.

Agnes Winokur (20:11):

From my field specifically, I would say that I don't think people realize how much statistics play a role <laugh>. So I, I would definitely tell, you know, students, you know, study some statistics, you know, be be exposed to that, uh, because it does play a big role, uh, in forensic sciences in certain D disciplines, more so than others. Um, but that's, I think what surprising to a lot of students when I mentioned that, uh, how much, uh, how impactful statistics can be, uh, in, in what you're doing. And also, um, some, uh, some other, some other ways of looking at things like, uh, even human factors, which is looking at bias and looking our conscious bias and, and subconsciously how we approach things. That's definitely something that I don't think people think about and we do as we're writing standards because the questions come up. Again, that's one of the benefits of having so many different perspectives on the, in, you know, there on the table. Um, but I think that's also been a surprise, uh, for me throughout the years, uh, that I'm like, yeah, I hadn't thought about that. You know, we need to, we need to approach this and, you know, how do we mitigate bias? I mean, those are new thoughts, I think, to forensic sciences.

Dave Walsh (21:32):

Well, and you know, you touched on another issue, uh, that I had a note to ask you about here, which is that that consensus process, the A STM standards process, um, what, what do you think it means to the development of forensic standards and, and how helpful has it been? And, and could you picture the advances that have been made to this point being made without a consensus process like you've been involved in in E 30?

Agnes Winokur (21:54):

Uh, no, I cannot. I, I think we need everybody. I really do. Um, I think it is a consensus, uh, requires all the different perspectives and, uh, I think that's critical to develop, uh, really good standards. Uh, it, it helps do well-defined, uh, objectives, uh, to meet current needs and not just the current needs in, you know, in your way of thinking, but current needs that are truly, uh, in forensic science. And you can only get that from different ways of thinking, from different ways of looking at forensic science, uh, that address all these potential concerns. Uh, in order to get these good standards, you need good collaboration. But like I, like I said before, um, one of the things that A STM does is offer this incredible platform of collaboration that creates, not just creates it, but fosters an environment where people feel that they can ask challenging questions, that we can get into some really good discussions.

Agnes Winokur (22:59):

Uh, because ultimately that's how you can reach consensus, right? To feel that, uh, freedom to speak your mind and that trust, uh, I truly believe that we all have the same goal. We all want to, uh, develop good standards. We all want to strengthen forensic sciences, you know, this is why we devote our time, and I don't know if people even realize that, but we are there as volunteers and that's how strongly we feel of the, of how important and impactful these standards are, um, that we want to be part of it. So I, I think that the collaboration, uh, of having different, uh, perspectives is what makes standards great. And what has been, uh, one of the most attributing factors to the strengthening of forensic sciences throughout the years?

Laura Hernandez (23:51):

I would say that the consensus process is absolutely required to get really robust standards. Um, we just can't achieve it in any other way in order to achieve a consensus. We're not necessarily saying that everybody agrees with us. What we are saying is that if there is a question that's raised or an issue, we put it out there for people to understand whether or not their voice has accurately been heard. It's not one person that's driving all of the changes that are going through. We can reduce the stress of trying to haggle it out with somebody and let the committee decide. But in order to do this effectively, we have to do a couple of things. One, we have to be open to the idea that we might be incorrect. Um, that's really, you know, can be a very difficult position for us to be in, to be told we're wrong. No adult really likes to hear that we're wrong. But when we are, you know, discussing about consensus, it's that freedom to say that you may be wrong looking at from a broader standpoint and saying, okay, well I'm gonna ask the group like, am I incorrect or not? And in doing so, the committee is gonna help us decide whether or not this is currently something that's needed by industry standard or not, and we can move forward and really have questions that are thought through.

Agnes Winokur (25:11):

I think that one of the things that, uh, we learn as we work on these standards is a lot of times the differences of, of, uh, of opinion is based on misunderstanding. And sometimes we are writing a standard and we are thinking we're saying one thing, and then there's another party who's reading it and actually reading it completely different. And that's one of the advantages of having, uh, these discussions because then we realize, hmm, that's not how I'm meant to communicate it, and maybe we need to write it a little bit different. So we have an opportunity to make our standards, uh, you know, clearer and, and getting the right information. That's how we can have the most impact.

Dave Walsh (25:57):

What would you say to a student or an early career professional who's currently thinking about joining A STM and and would you tell them it would be worth their time? Is that something they should get involved in?

Laura Hernandez (26:07):

I would say absolutely to any student or entering professional is to, um, be active in professional organizations. Um, I remember when I first started going to the business meetings at A STM, I was sitting in a room with some of the industry leaders and it was an amazing experience to hear how the language was being negotiated. And the more I went to those meetings, the more I understood like how to write policy better or how to accept critical feedback, um, and how to handle challenging conversations in a way that I was never, um, taught or trained in my organizations. And so I've gotten a lot of personal, you know, benefits from the a s TM process outside of just exercising my voice in the consensus development process. The other thing I would probably say to any forensic practitioner is be prepared to never stop learning. You may change disciplines, you may stay in the same discipline, but regardless of where you end up or what you end up doing, there are always challenges. There are always new research that's coming out. There are always new methods, there are always, you know, practices and procedures that are being done in other laboratories. And the more you take a little bit of that time to continually educate yourself, the more equipped and the more comfortable you're gonna feel in your testing procedures that you do yourself.

Agnes Winokur (27:30):

I will definitely say that it is worth their time, you know, uh, they're gonna hear, um, concerns related to forensic sciences from very different perspectives, but this will challenge and expand, expand their minds. Uh, they will have an opportunity to partake in very meaningful conversations and to do something for the greater good. Right? Um, but I think that there's also a, an incredible, uh, opportunity to shift the way we think into continual improvement. And it's something that Laura also mentioned a little bit on is that what you will find in A STM is that we're all very committed to continual improvement. And this is why our standards get revised in a 30. They get revised, they get, uh, you know, made current so that we can constantly be improving them and meeting the needs, meeting that moment, uh, in forensic sciences. So this is an in an incredible, uh, way, uh, for any new forensic scientists, uh, to start thinking in a different way and looking at forensic sciences in terms of how can this be improved? How can we look at this process? How can technology be, uh, used and, and applied in a way that that makes it more, uh, you know, more useful, um, with higher reliability, it starts to make you really look at things in from a different way.

Laura Hernandez (29:02):

I would also add that it's a wonderful way when you start going to the business meetings for A STM, it's a great way to actually expand your network as well. You're gonna be around some amazing scientists that are genuine leaders within their field, and, you know, most of the time you're gonna have some really great conversations, you know, with the people that are in that room and outside of that room. So it's a just a wonderful way of building a network if you don't necessarily have one already.

Dave Walsh (29:30):

As you've both been talking, I've been thinking of sort of a separate question, uh, but related, um, and, and Laura, we can start with you. Where do you see the field of forensics in the next 10 or 20 years? Because I'm thinking, what will these early professionals have to deal with? What will they encounter in their careers in the future after they've been in their positions for 25 years? What do you think the field will look like? Where's the technology going? What are the sorts of issues they might face? I don't know if you had any, any thoughts on that?

Laura Hernandez (29:55):

I feel like we are always gonna be caught between the push and pull of, you know, expanding our capabilities and being reigned in to make sure that we have, um, appropriate controls in place to do the testing correctly. And we're just gonna have that, you know, push and pull. And I think our standards are gonna help us clear or define where we can and can't go with it, or at least where we can't go with it. And I think that, um, once we get a better understanding of, you know, how to properly train people to current industry standards and quality assurance and all those things, I think all of those, um, standards are gonna become a little bit more, um, front and center than they have been in the past. And I think we're just going to, you know, continue to refine what is expected of forensic science.

Agnes Winokur (30:39):

I would agree that you're gonna see an even higher level of standardization. I mean, that's one of the, the biggest differences from when I first started 25 years ago to now, uh, you know, you have standards, you have procedures and set procedures and requirements, and I think we're gonna continue to see that. I think it's gonna increase and I think it's going to be more uniform across, uh, the United States. So you're seeing a lot of standardization, more so now, uh, within certain agencies, within certain laboratories, but I think you're gonna see it now in the future across laboratories, regardless what jurisdiction they may represent. I think that's the future. I think standardization will increase.

Dave Walsh (31:25):

Well, I think that's about all we have time for, but this was very educational for me and very informative. And, uh, I just wanna thank you both for taking the time to, uh, talk with us today. Thanks very much.

Laura Hernandez (31:36):

Thank you.

Agnes Winokur (31:37):

Thank you.

Dave Walsh (31:44):

If you wanna learn more about any of the standards discussed in this episode, visit for all the latest. And if you enjoyed the show, remember to like and subscribe so you never miss an episode. I'm Dave Walsh, and this has been Standards Impact presented by A STM International.