"argumentative", or have "bad attitudes". Two of the trainees have several yearsexperience from other ASCLD and ISO accredited labs. They are abhorred at thetraining program and daily operations in the lab. The Management has explained that the SOP was designed and written with "shadesof grey", allowing analyst's flexibility in their decisions during evidence examination.Also, official changes in the SOP which result in "clarity" or "specifics" could bedetrimental to the analysts from an (Expert Witness) testimonial point-of-view.Management, too, is guilty of not enforcing, or following, the Quality AssuranceProgram in regards to modifications of the SOP (and many other other rules statedwithin the QA/QC manuals.) Far too often, when an infraction of the QA/QC programby the management is reported (as a friendly reminder) to the management,the"shoot the messenger" tactic is applied. As a means of demonstrating authority, themanagement often offhandedly mention "insubordination" and threaten disciplinaryactions of "...up to, and including, termination". Because of this management style,the analysts often do not report incidences which could affect the work product. Itfosters an atmosphere where mistakes are covered up or blame is transferred toanother individual. Moral is often low.I have researched several other forensic lab's SOPs available to the online communityand I feel that ours is far below par. One might even suggest that the SOP we areusing does not currently meet (nor has it for many years) ASCLD standards. I havebeen told by management that our SOP has been audited several times by outsideagencies and deemed acceptable by the scientific community. Yet, strangely, thisyear's internal audit (lead by our newly hired Quality Manager) has uncoveredseveral procedural "issues" and prompted management’s sudden need to re-writethe SOP.From a legal standpoint, our SOP is discoverable. Therefore, an analyst serving as anExpert Witness in court can be questioned as to the details of what they didprocedurally while handling and analyzing evidence. If an analyst recounts specificdetails of a procedure performed during analysis, but contradictory steps are statedin the SOP (because the SOP had been changed "verbally" by the Managementwithout proper documentation), the analyst's professional ethics could be called intoquestion. The analyst could be characterized as a maverick, working outside the SOP,compromising evidence and biasing conclusions. The analyst's career as a forensicbiologist could end. Management has done nothing to aleviate the concerns of ananalyst in regards to giving erroneous testimony. The issues with the current SOP and Training Program have been presented to theManagement both verbally and in a formal document. Sadly, very little has changed.My apologies for remaining vague in names and details, but I feel that disclosingidentifying information at this time may get me reprisal from management orterminated from employment. Furthermore, being labeled a "whistleblower" oraccused of making false accusations may hinder my chances at finding newemployment in the field. This is a situation that I've never encountered before and Iam uncertain as to the correct way to approach it, ethically and legally.Is there an immediate course of action that I can take without jeopardizing myemployment, or career, as forensics biologists?Is there a way of presenting evidence of my concerns without disclosing my name?Can a third-party act as liaison?