Last year, the Department of Justice released a report that involved some painful self-examination. The DOJ looked at its own performance when it came to the analysis of hair samples—these were once used to identify potential suspects, but the FBI discontinued that practice in 1996. In looking over past cases, however, the feds discovered that agents had systematically overstated the method’s accuracy in court, including at least 35 death penalty cases.

Now, in response to this and other reports on problems with forensic analysis, the President’s Council Of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has issued an analysis that extends to half a dozen forensic techniques, including fingerprinting. The report finds that all of them have problems when it comes to operating on a firm scientific footing, so PCAST makes strong recommendations for how to get forensic science to take its name seriously.

The history that got us here is more than a bit ironic. DNA testing, which we now consider nearly foolproof, started appearing in court in the 1980s, before the people doing it had a strong grip on how to use it effectively. The ensuing chaos eventually led to it being ruled inadmissible in a case in New York. This prompted reforms and analysis that eventually put the field on firm scientific footing. Its use to reanalyze older cases, however, revealed problems in many convictions based on other forensic techniques.