ANY ISSUES RELATED TO SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS INVOLVED. IT IS IMPROPER TO VIEW THE VOICEPRINT CONTROVERSY MERELY AS A SCIENTIFIC CURIOSITY. THE LARGER ISSUE CONCERNS THE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS FROM THEIR SPEECH BY WHATEVER APPROACH OR COMBINATION OF APPROACHES PROVES EFFECTIVE. A NUMBER OF FACTORS, INCLUDING THE POPULAR APPEAL OF THE VOICEPRINT-FINGERPRINT ANALOGY, HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO A PREMATURE NARROWING OF FOCUS IN SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION RESEARCH. PROPONENTS OF THE VOICEPRINT TECHNIQUE FAIL TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS AND RESEARCH IN ACTUAL, OR EVEN SIMULATED, LAW ENFORCEMENT SITUATIONS. IN ADDITION, PROPONENTS OF THE VOICEPRINT APPEAR TO EXHIBIT A BIAS THAT TRANSCENDS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY, CITING SUPPORT FOR THE VOICEPRINT METHOD FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WHEN SUCH SUPPORT IS NOT DOCUMENTED, AND EMPHASIZING THE COMPETENCY OF 'PROFESSIONAL EXAMINERS' WHEN FEW SUCH PROFESSIONALS EXIST. IF ATTENTION CONTINUES TO BE FOCUSED ON THE VOICEPRINT CONTROVERSY RATHER THAN ON A SUSTAINED EFFORT TO DEVELOP VALID, RELIABLE SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION METHODS IRREPARABLE HARM WILL BE DONE.