Why would a person volunteer to fill out a long application form, find references to say nice things, and then pay money so you can take a comprehensive test that requires a significant study-time investment? Good question. Apparently approximately 175 forensic toxicologists have decided it is worth the effort. That is the number of individuals currently certified as “Diplomates” or “Forensic Toxicology Specialists” by the American Board of Forensic Toxicology (ABFT).

Certification is more than getting to put some letters behind your name and bolstering your credibility in court. Certification is an acknowledgement, by leaders in your profession, that you have the education, experience and knowledge to practice your chosen profession competently.

Currently, examinations are held two times a year; at the Society of Forensic Toxicologist (SOFT) meeting and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) meeting. The next SOFT meeting will be in the Detroit area, October 13-17, 2002. The next AAFS meeting will be in Chicago, February 17-22, 2003. I am continuing to try to have an examination scheduled for the SAT/CAT joint meeting in Albuquerque. When you are weighing the merits of certification, click over to www.abft.org and look at the online directory of certificants. You will see names of toxicologists that have pioneered and molded the field of forensic toxicology: Dr. Kurt Dubowski, Dr. Irving Sunshine, Mr. Robert Cravey, Dr. Yale Caplan, and Dr. James Garriott and others. Think about having your name inserted in that list.

The website is also a good source of information on requirements and procedures for application. Of course I will be happy to discuss any question you have. See you in Galveston.

At the fall meeting, during the First Annual Charles Tripp Informal Forum, we had some good discussion about a number of topics. The topics discussed were instigated by a series of questions that were distributed earlier to the workgroups. I have been asked to review the discussion we had on one of them.

The question was "How many points are required for a valid calibration curve?"

Initial responses ranged from one to five. The discussion that followed included these points: standards are used to construct a calibration curve. Quality controls, quantitated against that curve, are used to validate the linearity and the precision of the curve. Dynamic range and accuracy of the procedure is established during the initial validation. Properly chosen quality control concentrations range from the low end to the upper end of the dynamic range. While we did not achieve unanimous agreement, the conclusion was that since quality controls validate the linearity of a curve (within the established dynamic range), it is not necessary to show linearity with standards. Also, since two points make a curve and one of them can be the origin, only one standard point is required to construct a valid calibration curve.

I would like to take this opportunity to again thank everyone involved in organizing the meeting.

Great job.

Our field has grown from separatory funnels using large volumes of specimen and confirmation by TLC, UV, or Gas Chromatography only. We were lucky to see a spot or absorbance at the ug/L level. Our results were welcomed by the Medical Examiners when our analysis corresponded with other collaborating data. Quantitative numbers were normally high and pretty conclusive as to the cause of death. If our results would have generated lower values, would the Medical Examiners have been happy? Confused? Aggravated? Our job was to report results with the best technology our office could afford.

The field of drug testing whether in the ME's office, clinical lab, equine, or urine drug lab is dynamic. New methodologies and instrumentation have enabled us to use lesser amount of specimen and perform analyses with greater accuracy and sensitivity. LSD, cannabinoids, and other "exotic" drugs can now be detected at low nanogram levels using a simple MSD in the EI mode with capillary columns. Many other drugs, prescription or over the counter, can also be detected with Gas Chromatography utilizing capillary columns with FID/NPD detectors. Using as little as 0.2 mL of blood or lower, analyses can be performed on a routine basis with accurate and quantitative results. Our field has progressed to the point where levels are now being reported in the pg/mL (and lower) levels. Technology is good, but how low do we need to go with over dose cases or therapeutic drug testing? Many laboratories have established "cut-offs" or LOD/LOQ's. Would lowering these values change their results?

In the field of drug testing, have we created a bottomless pit where a "cut-off" has been lost because of new procedures and instrumentation? What's wrong with 1 to 10 ng/mL? Or 20 ng/mL?