 
 
|   |   
 
 A DRE officer stops a driver, and suspects drugs. The DRE examines the driver, looking for supposed physical "indicators" of the presence of various drugs. The officer concludes that the driver is impaired by a drug, orders forced blood testing, and—before the results come back— predicts the presence of a drug belonging to a particular drug category. 
 Some drivers refuse blood testing. When these people are prosecuted, DRE officers' opinions are used, without toxicology testing, as evidence of drug impaired driving. 
   Traffic police believe they 
        have proof DIEs work. First, in day to day use the DIE 
        appears to validate itself. Drug Recognition Experts 
        predict specific drugs, and later  Second, police cite  
        "scientific studies"  that claim to prove 
        DIEs are accurate. Later 
        you'll learn what peer-reviewed science says about the 
        validity of those studies.    Does any of this seem odd to you? Is this story possible? No, it isn't. The traffic-police Drug Influence Evaluation story can't be true. Here at DECP.US I'm gonna splain to you why and how it isn't true. Good people, bad science  Nothing 
         The 
        fine folks at NHTSA and the IACP are good people doing 
        their best. But mostly they are not scientists.  Science 
      is harder than it looks. Validating diagnostic 
      tests is harder than it looks. Validation methods 
      based on common sense lead immediately to immense 
      over estimations of test accuracy in a way that 
      is entirely invisible to non-specialists. NHTSA's 
      in-house traffic-police DIE validation science 
      looks like real science. But it's not. DIEs are 
      crackpot science, not because someone is cheating, 
      but because they were invented and tested by wonderful 
      people who lacked the specialized training necessary 
      to know the subtle tricks required to validate 
      a diagnostic test in a scientifically meaningful 
      way. DECP.US is not about these good people, it's about that bad science. | ||||
|  |