Forensic scientist tried to blow whistle on DNA laboratory’s testing bungle

The toxic culture inside Queensland’s state-run DNA laboratory continues to unravel with a forensic scientist dropping a sex assault bombshell.

A forensic scientist at the state-run laboratory formally raised concerns about the testing of DNA samples from major crimes twice but was dismissed by management, as further details of the lab’s toxic culture unravelled.

Reporting scientist Alicia Quartermain told the commission of inquiry into the testing of forensic evidence in Queensland she raised concerns about the Forensic Scientific Services’s unusually high threshold for testing DNA in 2020.

She grew cautious of the testing process after she discovered traces of sperm in samples collected from sexual assault victims.

The scientist said this sort of evidence was critical for assisting an investigation and would more than likely provide a result from testing.

Scientist Alicia Quartermain outside the Commission of Inquiry into Forensic DNA Testing. Picture: John Gass

But, on occasions, these tests returned as DNA insufficient for further processing, which was the result of a new threshold introduced by the lab, double the number of cells required in NSW.

“That was a concern to me because if we had seen sperm under the microscope, there is male DNA present in that sample,” Ms Quartermain told the hearing.

“I didn’t feel comfortable knowing that we had seen sperm under the microscope but were reporting the result as DNA insufficient for further processing.”

In 2019, she became wary of the threshold and instigated her own process of further testing samples, which routinely led to a successful identification of usable DNA profiles.

Ms Quartermain documented these results and raised these issues to her superiors in April 2020 and then again in 2021.

In an email shown to the hearing on Monday morning, Ms Quartermain contacted FSS team manager Justine Howes in 2021 to protest against the process, for the second time.

“I feel that reporting these samples as DIFP (DNA insufficient for further processing) is technically incorrect,” she wrote.

“I strongly feel that we should be processing a lot of these samples these days.”

Ms Quartermain said the refusal of managers to consider her concerns about the testing, which the Inquiry has heard was consistent with other scientists, created a “division within the laboratory” that led to a poor workplace culture.

“This is a big problem,” she said. “I’m seeing things that we need to do something about – this doesn’t sit right with me.

“Things that should be taken very seriously aren’t taken as seriously as they should be.

“And then I wonder what the motive for that is – why isn’t he as concerned about this as I am?

“We want to try and get the best DNA profile we can for the community and for police and, for some reason, I’m not allowed to do what I want to do with these samples and effectively that creates division.

“The flow-on of that is I know that if I take something to Justin I don’t get his support.”