Recently, one of the world’s leading scientific and technical advisory groups, the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (or PCAST), published an assessment of the research supporting several forensic science procedures in regular use. PCAST was particularly interested in pattern recognition or comparison procedures, specifically: simple and mixed DNA profiles; bite marks; latent fingerprints; firearms; footwear; and hair analysis. In its report and recommendations PCAST emphasised the primacy of validation. In response, the Council of the Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society produced a short statement suggesting that the PCAST report has limited application to forensic science in Australia and New Zealand. This short commentary offers an alternative perspective.