Testify does not equal independently certified. Also, double-blind testing is not really subject to faking. Its the standard of science.

Responses to my comment are all around 'how it is now' which seems not to be very reliable. A responsible testing/certification process would address that.

You've just moved the goal posts from someone who can be crossed in court to someone who can't, which is worse, because then you have now way of verifying that the "independent" certifier is actually independent or that the certification was properly done.

You still need to allow the "independent certification" to be examined in court to validate both the independence and the certification. The means testimony on the applicable standards, and how the specific equipment used satisfied those standards. And right now, the expert witness already does the latter with respect to calibration, etc., for the equipment they used.

The skepticism has to end somewhere. Else ever court case becomes an infinite regressing into doubting the foundations of everything.

Of course self-certification is not the best. To bring up that straw man (as most of these posts do) is not advancing the conversation.

Yes, the skepticism has to end somewhere. But when someone is facing years, or life, in prison, that skepticism absolutely should not end before it validates the primary evidence of guilt, and the tools used to purportedly analyze that evidence.

If you can't validate the equipment used to analyze the DNA, gunshot residue, or other scientific evidence, then that evidence should not be allowed in court, because that's prima facie reasonable doubt.

That straw man is essentially the status quo at the moment...

Reread the comment being responded to? It started with that, suggested an alternative. Anything helpful to add?