Following the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG) DNA Commission (2020) recommendations, evaluation of biological traces considering activity level propositions has gained attention. However, understanding and implementation among forensic practitioners remain variable. This study presents the results of a survey conducted among members of the Italian Working Group of ISFG (GeFI) to assess knowledge, experience, and attitudes toward this approach.

The 21-item questionnaire explored professional background, institutional affiliation, knowledge of activity-level evaluation and Bayesian Networks, sources of information, operational experience, courtroom involvement, barriers, training needs, and awareness of guidelines on DNA transfer and persistence.

Respondents represented diverse experience levels and workplaces, mainly law enforcement and academic labs. Self-reported knowledge of activity-level evaluation was moderate (about 60% rated acceptable to good), with few reporting excellent familiarity. Knowledge of Bayesian Networks was lower; around 50% indicated none or limited understanding.

Interest was high, with over 90% expressing good or excellent interest, and more than 60% rating activity-level evaluation as useful or very useful. This perception was strongly shaped by experience: intermediate practitioners showed the greatest enthusiasm, while the most experienced displayed greater caution, indicating a mature awareness of practical challenges.

Confidence in formulating activity-level propositions was limited, with over 60% reporting low or no confidence, and none reporting high confidence. Practical experience was also limited; while some had theoretical or training exposure, few applied the approach in casework or included it in official reports.

In court, requests for activity-level evaluations were infrequent, and their inclusion in reports was rare. Quantitative expression using likelihood ratios (LR) was uncommon, though most respondents viewed LR-based approaches as preferable or equally useful compared to qualitative methods and believed they could enhance expert testimony.

Major challenges included difficulty explaining probabilistic reasoning and ensuring court comprehension. Training needs were clear, with strong support for practical workshops, collaborative exercises, and access to updated, structured data on DNA transfer, persistence, and background information.

Overall, the survey reveals strong interest but limited practical adoption of activity-level evaluation among Italian forensic geneticists. Closing gaps in training, hands-on experience, and communication is essential for consistent, effective use in forensic casework and courtroom reporting.

Authors

• Loredana Buscemi (Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Polytechnic University of Marche, Italy)
• Elena Chierto (Department of Public Health Sciences and Pediatrics, University of Turin, Italy)
• Federica Alessandrini (Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Polytechnic University of Marche, Italy)
• Carla Bini (Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Section of Legal Medicine, University of Bologna, Italy)
• Paolo Fattorini (University Clinical Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Italy)
• Carlo Robino (Department of Public Health Sciences and Pediatrics, University of Turin, Italy)