Addressing Inaccuracies and Misleading Information In Recent CFSO Position Paper

Written by Mike Cariola, President & CEO, Bode Technology, and Co-Founder of FCJA

The recent CFSO (Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations) position paper opposing private laboratory access to CODIS is unfortunately littered with distracting inaccuracies and strawman arguments. Rather than rebut every misstatement in the paper, I will address the most glaring. And rather than responding in an overly long single post, I will post over time.

We are happy to address any questions people may have about this topic and why we fervently believe that significant changes are needed to the current system to improve the forensic science system. You can learn more about our initiative at FCJA.

Today I will address the false statements about private labs overall. The paper expresses concern about the overall instability of private DNA lab companies and that this potentially creates follow-up issues for cases. Specifically, the paper says:

Many private DNA laboratories providing DNA casework and DNA database work have gone out of business.  Notable laboratories that have done work in the forensic DNA space that have gone out of business, been sold, or left the forensic industry entirely are: Myriad Genetics, Relative Genetics, Orchid, Cellmark, Sorenson Forensics, Orchid Cellmark, NMS DNA Laboratory, Intermountain Forensics, Forensic Analytical Specialties, Genescreen, and Reliagene among others.

Firstly, being sold is akin to a public lab getting new executive leadership and is not the same as ‘going out of business’. Let’s address each one individually:

• Myriad Genetics. Company is alive and well. In the early 2000s, Myriad provided forensic databasing services and exited forensics over 20 years ago because biotechnology was a much better business (personal conversations). They developed one of the earliest genetic tests for breast cancer (testing for the BRCA gene) and have continued to focus on early detection of many types of cancer. In the unlikely event that data from 20 years ago, generated on Macintosh G4s, is ever needed, they can be reached. I am happy to facilitate introductions.

• Relative Genetics. In my 25+ years of working at a private DNA laboratory, I have never heard of this company and there is no indication that they ever provided forensic services. According to Wikipedia, they provided genealogy services and were bought by AncestryDNA in 2007.

• Orchid. Never existed. See Orchid Cellmark.

• Cellmark. Same entity as Orchid Cellmark. See below.

• Sorenson Forensics. Still exists and currently provides forensic science services.

• Orchid Cellmark. In 2011, LabCorp bought Orchid Cellmark. In 2014, LabCorp bought Bode and renamed the merged entity Bode Cellmark Forensics. In 2019, I executed a management buyout from LabCorp. We maintain the records for Orchid Cellmark, regularly provide discovery materials and testify for Orchid Cellmark cases.

• NMS DNA Laboratory. NMS is a thriving forensic science provider. While they made the business decision to exit DNA services, most public laboratories utilize their other services and I am confident they can provide their DNA records if needed.

• Intermountain Forensics. Acquired by DNA Labs International in 2024. DLI maintains the records.

• Forensic Analytical Specialties. Cannot locate any records for a company by this name. Perhaps this refers to Forensic Analytical Crime Lab? If so, we are happy to inform you that they have been operating since 1994 and are a member of our coalition. 

• Genescreen. Was part of Orchid Cellmark. Bode maintains the records.

• Reliagene. Was part of Orchid Cellmark. Bode maintains the records.

The CFSO position paper goes back more than 25 years in an apparent attempt to show that the private DNA labs have come and gone, and the associated forensic data has disappeared. As outlined above, this is wholly inaccurate.

Most of the labs in our coalition have been continuously providing accredited forensic DNA testing for decades, including SERI (>30 years), Forensic Analytical Crime Lab (>30 years), Bode (>30 years), and DNA Labs International (>25 years).

Furthermore, the NDIS Procedures Manual already addresses how data should be handled in the event that a laboratory closes. Specifically, Section 2.6, titled ‘NDIS Laboratory Ceases Operations – Transfer of Ownership of DNA Records at NDIS’, addresses in detail how to handle DNA records should an NDIS laboratory cease operations. This clause likely was inserted due to public crime labs such as the Houston Police Department and the Detroit Police Department ceasing operations. Thankfully the stewards of CODIS figured out a way to preserve the data.

Data stewardship is an important issue; however, I am confident that it can be properly addressed for private labs through open discussions and controls within the NDIS Procedures Manual.

Next I will address the CFSO statement that ‘Public laboratories are not motivated by profit margins or financial investors and exist solely to protect the safety of the public…’.

This article was originally posted on LinkedIn on April 2, 2026.