Given the well-chronicled problems with the Harris County Crime Lab’s handling of DNA evidence, the proposal made in this Roger Koppl/New York Post op-ed focusing on the misuse of DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse team case makes a lot of sense:

DNA is no magic bullet of truth when the testers are aligned unambiguously with the prosecution. During the testimony in which it was revealed that [prosecutor Mike] Nifong and [DNA Lab director Brian] Meehan had agreed to hide the DNA evidence, Meehan referred to Nifong as “my client.” Instead of serving the truth, Meehan’s forensics lab was helping its “client,” the prosecutor.
When forensic scientists work exclusively for the prosecution, we should expect errors and abuse. Using post-conviction DNA evidence, the Innocence Project has helped exonerate nearly 200 people wrongly convicted of crimes. A study of the first 86 such cases, published in the journal Science, found faulty forensics played a role in almost two-thirds of those convictions.
The time has come to free forensic science from the pressures of prosecutorial bias. To that end, crime labs should become independent of police and prosecutors, and public defenders should be given greater access to forensic advice and testing. Crime labs should be independent, operating under the supervision of an officer of the court, who would be responsible for assigning forensic evidence to laboratories and ensuring that all crime labs in the system are following proper scientific procedures.