Itiel Dror, a cognitive psychologist at University College, London, thinks this doctrine of infallibility needs to be questioned.

一位伦敦的大学认知心理学专家Itiel Dror认为这个说法的正确性有待考验。

Citing earlier research by Dr Dror, the report's authors stated, for example, that fingerprint examiners' claims of zero error rates were scientifically implausible.

引用这篇报道的作者Dror博士早前做的研究，例如，指纹鉴定者宣称的零误差在科学上是不合理的。

Dr Dror's and Dr Hampikian's experiment presented data from a real case to 17 DNA examiners working in an accredited government laboratory in North America.

Dror博士和Dr Hampikian博士的实验提供一个真实案例的数据给17个在一家受认可的北美政府实验室里工作的DNA鉴定员。

Dr Dror thinks that in about 25% of cases, tiny samples or the mixing of material from more than one person can lead to such ambiguity.

Dror博士认为在大约25%的案子里，小样本或者从不止一人身上取来的混合物质可能导致这样的二义性。

Though they cannot prove it, Dr Dror and Dr Hampikian suspect the difference in contextual information given to the examiners was the cause of the different results.

尽管他们无法证明，Dror博士和Hampikian博士怀疑鉴定师得到的上下文信息的区别是引起这些不同结果的原因。

However, of the 17 examiners Dr Dror and Dr Hampikian approached—who, unlike the original two, knew nothing about the context of the crime—only one thought that the same suspect could not be excluded.

然而，在Dror博士和Hampikian接触的17个鉴定师中——他们不像开始两位鉴定师那样，对犯罪内容一无所知——只有一位认为一样的嫌疑不能被排除。