Kirk's 'Ontogeny of Criminalistics' revisited under the lens of the Sydney Declaration.

The present commentary reviews the considerations of the famous American criminalist Paul Kirk in his seminal publication of 'The Ontogeny of Criminalistics,' written sixty years ago, regarding the status of forensic science and its fundamental principles. Professor Kirk aimed to examine forensic science as an independent scientific discipline, resulting in the identification of six key topics: 1) The need for fundamental principles; 2) the distinction between 'identification' and 'individualization;' 3) the qualifying elements of a profession; 4) the qualifying aspects of a science; 5) the need for a research-oriented basis; 6) the need for application of statistics and probability. In particular, Kirk deemed the nature of the progress made during his time as technical, practical, and transient at the cost of being fundamental, theoretical, and permanent. Predominantly, it is still the case today, with a post-effect fragmentation of forensic science into a myriad of ultra-specialized subdisciplines and applications. The lack of proper articulation of the most fundamental principles of forensic science was one of Kirk's most pressing concerns. The Sydney Declaration aimed to recapture the current fundamental (ontological and epistemological) status of forensic science, resulting in the redefinition of forensic science and its prime object of study, the trace, and in the consolidation of seven principles. The present commentary attempts to address Kirk's arguments in the Ontogeny in the context of the principles of the Declaration, with particular emphasis on the fundamental principles as well as Kirk's distinction between 'identification' and 'individualization,' which is considered critical to understanding the overall scope of forensic science.