In the past few decades, there has been a meteoric rise in fascination with forensic science. The advent of true crime podcasts, internet forums, and the inundation of both nonfiction and fictional television depictions of forensic science have brought investigating crime scenes to the masses. The term “internet sleuths” has been coined to reflect the phenomenon of individuals who take detective work into their own hands and interject themselves in criminal investigations. The rise of new forensic and surveillance technologies, such as DNA matching, facial recognition, automated license plate readers, and integrated artificial intelligence, are shaping this rapidly evolving field—for better and for worse. The aim of this class is to bring forensic science to trial and interrogate the scientific, legal, philosophical, ethical, and social dimensions of this practice.
I first designed this class as a graduate student at the University of Utah, where I was awarded a University Teaching Assistantship (a fellowship designated for creative pedagogical pursuits). This was an invaluable experience as a graduate student, as I sharpened my teaching skills by incorporating interdisciplinary resources and cultivating a dynamic, interactive classroom. Drawing on literature and research primarily in philosophy, psychology, sociology, criminology, history, and the law, students were exposed to a wide swath of issues—ranging from junk science to cognitive biases in eyewitness testimony to mass incarceration.
Since running this course as a graduate student, I have run this course twice at the Illinois Institute of Technology. I also have had the privilege and honor to teach an iteration of this class at the innovative Hamilton College Summer Program in Philosophy in the summer of 2025, where I was able to coordinate a field trip to a forensic lab in upstate New York. When I originally designed this course, I thought I would run it as a special topic in philosophy of science, honing in on issues in forensic science through the lens of traditional philosophy of science (i.e. demarcation, trust in science, research methodology, etc.). However, I quickly learned this is much more amorphous, and instead, students are exposed to a range of philosophical issues by engaging with what happens when the institutions of the law and science interact.
Each class session is a combination of lecture and small group activity, and students have remarked in personal communications and evaluations that they really enjoy the small group work. Activities range from case studies to role-playing to games. For example, when covering science communication, to demonstrate how scientific data can get misconstrued and misapplied in legal settings, I have designed a “telephone” style game. Students are broken into 4 groups that are arranged in a single file row. Each student receives a role—scientists, journalist, layperson, lawyer, and judge. The game starts with the scientist, who has been given a detailed description of results of a study that related to brain activity and correlation to violent behavior. The information is then passed down the line and distorted, until it reaches the judge, who has to make a sentencing decision based on what they heard.
The most surprisingly successful and experimental component of the course is a semester long group project that culminates in each group running their own activity, in lieu of a traditional presentation. At the beginning of the semester, students complete a survey indicating the forensic techniques and philosophical questions they are interested in exploring. I then assign groups based on their mutual interests. Each step of the project is broken up throughout the semester (see the syllabus for the assignments), to help guide them towards running an activity they have designed based on their topic. I dedicate class time to allow them to collaborate as much as possible without having to do too much outside of class, which is a significant deterrent for group projects. I have been thoroughly impressed with the creativity and thoughtfulness that has emerged the past few semesters and will continue to employ this approach.
If you are interested in running this course in its current form, the one downside is that there is more breadth than depth, which can be challenging to not have enough time to deeply cover important philosophical, scientific, and social issues. I am always happy to discuss and share materials that I have developed, as I will continue to teach—and fine tune—this course.
The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi in their original, unedited format that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes. We would love for you to be a part of this project. Please contact Series Editor Cara S. Greene at cgreene6@luc.edu, or contact Editor of the Teaching Beat Dr. Smrutipriya Pattnaik at smrutipriya23@gmail.com with potential submissions.
Kathryn Petrozzo
Kathryn Petrozzo, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Illinois Institute of Technology. Her current research focuses on the relationship between mental illness and conceptions of agency, responsibility, rationality, and punishment; namely, how these concepts are characterized and interact in legal, clinical, and social dimensions.
