FBI-QAS Update
It’s SWGDAM week—and I’m still here at my kitchen table
Although I’m no longer a voting member of SWGDAM (the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods) since leaving AFDIL in May, I still serve as an SME on the NGS Committee, which makes me something of a SWGDAM emeritus (minus the pension). Even though I’m not in the room this week, the new 2025 Quality Assurance Standards (QAS) was published on July 1st, so it’s a good time to break down what changed. To double-check my memory—I voted on these revisions last year—I ran a PDF-to-Word compare documents against the 2020 edition and flagged every noteworthy revision. Below is the “tldr” version for busy lab managers who don’t have an afternoon to comb through 50 pages of standards.
1. Coursework requirements:
Then (2020): Technical Leaders needed 12 credit hours in biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and stats/population genetics in a combination of undergraduate and graduate courses.
Now (2025): Technical Leaders need 9 credit hours in any biology/chemistry courses that underpin DNA analysis plus dedicated coursework in statistics or population genetics, with one course of these required courses at the graduate level. Analysts now follow the same 9 hours + stats formula, though at the undergraduate level.
Why it matters: This is a softening of the language to allow for varied course titles covering the same content, which eases the administrative burden on hiring managers and technical leaders. Previously, if someone's transcript showed "Forensic Molecular Biology" instead of “Molecular Biology," then a syllabus, letter from the instructor, or other document was necessary to demonstrate compliance with the course requirement. The revision to the technical leader coursework to separate statistics/pop-gen from the other DNA-focused courses reinforces that this is foundational knowledge in the age of probabilistic genotyping.
2. Validation:
The revised language is more streamlined so that there is less of a distinction between developmental validation and internal validation. This is a welcome change now that more labs are performing their own developmental validations for Next-Generation Sequencing / Massively Parallel Sequencing. It lets a lab that conduct its owndevelopmental validation treat that work as the internal validation as well, rather than repeating an “internal” study when following the QAS word-for-word.
3. Quantification:
Standard 9.4.2 now permits labs to quantify DNA during or after nuclear DNA (i.e. STR) amplification, if the kit has internal QC and your validation shows equivalence. This change allows for Rapid DNA chemistries that combine qPCR and STR amplification in a single assay to be utilized on forensic casework samples.
4. Proficiency testing:
When an ISO-accredited proficiency test provider doesn’t offer an appropriate test, Standard 13.1 now allows labs to meet the requirement by monitoring performance “in accordance with the laboratory's accreditation requirement.” This change effectively opens the door for peer-lab sample swaps for proficiency testing, although it seems that the external proficiency test is still stipulated in 13.1 —and it is an ISO17025 requirement as well. It remains to be seen whether labs will interpret this standard to mean that in-house proficiency testing is a viable option.
5. Editorial and housekeeping tweaks
Proper nouns: “Technical Leader” and “Casework CODIS Administrator” get capital letters throughout.
Rapid DNA and NDIS: a raft of new language appears, but I’ll leave that to the Rapid/NDIS specialists.
Audit cadence & other nips/tucks: minor wording changes tighten timelines and definitions; skim the header bullets in each section before your next internal audit.
Definitions: updated to reflect the content changes throughout the document.
Final thoughts from the kitchen table
The 2025 Forensic DNA Testing Laboratory QAS revisions look subtle on the surface, but they impact hiring, training plans, validation budgets, and proficiency-testing logistics. The new standards reflect diversification in DNA methods, advancements in statistical analysis that now represent foundational knowledge, and accommodations for fast-moving technologies that outpace accrediting bodies such as proficiency testing vendors. The new QAS signals a forensic DNA community that has (rapidly) outgrown its standards with changing technology, so some of the rules just don't fit anymore. With written guidance in place in these 2025 revisions, SWGDAM is loosening the belt and able to make some room to grow.
Questions or implementation war stories? Drop a comment—or ping me; emeritus status still comes with unlimited QAS nerd-outs. has outgrown its old standards
