Not at all relevant. I don't dismiss the testimony of whole categories of people based the misdeeds of a few. Go hold that up to the mirror to find your target audience. I have the intellectual rigor to distinguish betweens the actions of individuals rather than tarring all people in similar occupations with the same smears. Why would I care what one lab did unless that lab was the one who was providing evidence in a particular case? Just because some dweebs post stupid comments to Free Republic am I now supposed to think you are a dweeb too? It doesn't work that way.
"The FBI made widespread changes in the mid-1990s after its lab was rocked by a whistleblower's allegations and an investigation that found shoddy science by several lab examiners. AP reported last month that Justice officials have identified about 3,000 cases that might have been affected by those earlier problems and have let prosecutors decide whether to notify convicted defendants.
What I am saying is that I remember the time when if you wanted a 100% top score analysis done, it went to the Bureaus D.C. Labs. When the doubts started appearing I refused to follow along. The Bureaus Lab was still the best in my mind. It took the full investigation for me to understand that my level of standards no longer had a high point attached to the Bureau. I had seen SACs and the AICs fowl up tremendously, but the Lab was the last place I expected to witness just and verifiable criticisms of. Now, I question everything and everybody which is probably the way it should have been all along.