On February 20, 2026, at an IAFTC webinar, Bethany Pridgen delivered a  presentation on forensic accreditation and what it does, and does not, guarantee.

Her central point was straightforward: ISO 17025 accreditation is important, but it is not proof that a laboratory’s methods are scientifically optimal. Accreditation confirms that procedures are documented, followed, and supported by required records. It does not certify that every methodological choice is the best available or free from weakness.

Pridgen highlighted how scientifically questionable practices, such as single point calibration in quantitative blood alcohol testing, persisted for years within accredited systems before being formally cited. The issue was not the absence of paperwork. The issue was whether the underlying science was sufficiently scrutinized.

She also raised concerns about the concentration of forensic accreditation and the insularity of assessor pools. When assessors are drawn largely from within the same forensic culture, widely accepted practices may go unchallenged. Science benefits from cross disciplinary input and independent scrutiny.

Pridgen closed with a constructive message. Accreditation should be viewed as a minimum requirements for quality, not a substitute for critical thinking. Forensic toxicology earns trust not by invoking accreditation alone, but by continuously examining and strengthening its scientific practices.

Access the webinar recording and transcript here.