FORETHICS: From Principles to Operational Decisions in Forensic Research

Forensic research may involve living persons, deceased persons, human tissues, genetic data, records and images, judicial exhibits, animals, and artificial-intelligence systems. Although existing ethical instruments establish essential principles, they provide limited operational guidance for determining what must be authorised, protected, and documented before a specific study begins. FORETHICS was developed through a normative functional analysis of internationally recognised ethical instruments and selected forensic literature. Requirements were organised according to the governance function performed and examined across object-specific research scenarios. The resulting framework translates general principles into a common decision grammar comprising five foundational components, seven independent ethical axes, eight object-specific modules, cross-cutting modifiers, fifteen Hard Stops, a ten-gate decision pathway, and ten study-specific Decision Cards. Its Core Rule requires every project to establish who lawfully controls access for the proposed use, why the research is scientifically necessary, which safeguards are required, and what minimum documentation demonstrates decision readiness. The ethical object assessed is therefore the proposed research use rather than the specimen, record, or dataset in isolation. FORETHICS does not replace national law, ethical review, judicial authority, data-protection assessment, or animal-welfare oversight. It provides a candidate architecture for making forensic research governance more explicit, traceable, and comparable across jurisdictions while preserving locally lawful pathways. The framework has undergone internal scenario-based examination but has not yet been externally or empirically validated. Multidisciplinary consensus, inter-rater testing, cross-jurisdictional evaluation, and prospective usability studies are therefore required before implementation as an international decision-support standard.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Forensic Sciences
Published
2026-09-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci6030077
Primary Topic
Forensic and Genetic Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

FORETHICS: From Principles to Operational Decisions in Forensic Research

Alberto Chighine, Matteo Nioi, Ernesto d’Aloja
Forensic Sciences
Forensic and Genetic Research
article

FORETHICS: From Principles to Operational Decisions in Forensic Research

Alberto Chighine, Matteo Nioi, Ernesto d’Aloja
article en

Abstract

Forensic research may involve living persons, deceased persons, human tissues, genetic data, records and images, judicial exhibits, animals, and artificial-intelligence systems. Although existing ethical instruments establish essential principles, they provide limited operational guidance for determining what must be authorised, protected, and documented before a specific study begins. FORETHICS was developed through a normative functional analysis of internationally recognised ethical instruments and selected forensic literature. Requirements were organised according to the governance function performed and examined across object-specific research scenarios. The resulting framework translates general principles into a common decision grammar comprising five foundational components, seven independent ethical axes, eight object-specific modules, cross-cutting modifiers, fifteen Hard Stops, a ten-gate decision pathway, and ten study-specific Decision Cards. Its Core Rule requires every project to establish who lawfully controls access for the proposed use, why the research is scientifically necessary, which safeguards are required, and what minimum documentation demonstrates decision readiness. The ethical object assessed is therefore the proposed research use rather than the specimen, record, or dataset in isolation. FORETHICS does not replace national law, ethical review, judicial authority, data-protection assessment, or animal-welfare oversight. It provides a candidate architecture for making forensic research governance more explicit, traceable, and comparable across jurisdictions while preserving locally lawful pathways. The framework has undergone internal scenario-based examination but has not yet been externally or empirically validated. Multidisciplinary consensus, inter-rater testing, cross-jurisdictional evaluation, and prospective usability studies are therefore required before implementation as an international decision-support standard.

Forensic SciencesVol. 6(3)
University of Cagliari (IT)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Forensic and Genetic Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.