Corporate report

STEAC meeting minutes: 14 April 2026

Updated 8 October 2026

Notes of the 3rd meeting held on 14 April 2026 online via Microsoft Teams.

1 Welcome, introductions and declarations of interest

1.1. The Chair requested any new declarations of interest – none were received

1.2. Chair formally welcomed the new co-opted member to the STEAC committee and officer to Secretariat.

1.3. The Chair noted apologies to the attendees. A full list of attendees and apologies can be viewed in annex A.

1.4. The Chair also confirmed that due to prior commitments the introduction to the CSA would progress following the Head of Science Advice Delivery agenda item. The Chair also included his agenda item on Chair’s update and review of minutes and actions as part of his welcome to ensure the agenda schedule and timings could continue with minimum disruption.

Minutes from previous meeting

1.5. Minutes from the Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee (STEAC) meeting held on 14th of January were approved without comment. Previous requests for alterations and corrections had been addressed in the revised minutes presented to the committee.

1.6. Minutes agreed as an accurate record.

Outstanding Actions from previous meetings

1.7. Attendees were provided a list of outstanding actions and updates ahead of the meeting. The Chair provided an opportunity for members to raise any questions and discuss.

1.8. A list of actions recorded for closure is included as annex B.

1.9. All other actions remain open.

Action2404#09 FIGG to provide the FIGG DPIA to BFEG once completed and update BFEG on exactly what input they are seeking into their DPIA. (outstanding action). Action 2604#01 Secretariat to schedule FIGG DPIA review meeting (Phase 1 & 2) & STEAC members to be invited. Action 2604#02 Secretariat to invite wider STEAC membership to express interest in FIGG DPIA discussion once meeting is scheduled.

1.10. Committee reviewed the engagement log with no comments.

2 Home Office Chief Scientific Advisor Introduction

2.1. The Chair invited the new Chief Scientific Adviser to introduce herself and provide a verbal update on the current work and priorities.

2.2. The Chief Scientific Adviser for the Home Office advised attendees, newly appointed and working four days per week, alongside an academic role.

2.3. The Chief Scientific Adviser informed attendees that she had previously chaired (and then co chaired) the Home Office Science Advisory Council (HOSAC) and is very familiar with the advisory landscape.

2.4 . The Chief Scientific Adviser described herself as coming into the role with a strong understanding of how science advice has grown organically, sometimes unevenly, across the Home Office, and that the Science advice should enable delivery, not slow it down.

2.5. The Chief Scientific Adviser’s priority is to reposition science advice so it is:

• Practical
• Context aware
• Helpful to delivery timelines

2.6. Challenge and independence remain essential, but advice should be embedded early, not added late. The Chief Scientific Adviser spoke very positively about STEAC. She said that she “sees STEAC everywhere” in Home Office workstreams, particularly around ethics and emerging technology.

2.7. The Chief Scientific Adviser viewed STEAC as having a clear licence to operate and strong ministerial endorsement. She emphasised that STEAC’s growing visibility is a strength, not a problem.

2.8. The Chief Scientific Adviser was clear that STEAC should be engaged upstream, not just asked to comment after decisions are made. And, that ethics advice should sit alongside, not behind, policy and technology development.

2.9. A major part of her contribution focused on better coordination across advisory bodies as advisory councils have often worked in parallel rather than together.

2.10. This reduces impact and increases duplication, especially on cross cutting issues such as AI, Emerging technologies, Biometrics, and Horizon scanning.

2.11. The Chief Scientific Adviser vision includes:

• More fluid movement of expertise between SACs
• Joint or collective responses where appropriate
• Not everyone attending everything—targeted, proportionate involvement.

2.12. A member of STEAC asked how duplication will be avoided and boundaries clarified between Advisory committees, particularly on AI?

2.13. The Head of Science Advice Delivery stated that an overlap is sometimes unavoidable on cross cutting topics, and that there have been some changes made to address this, such as the Secretariat aligned under one function, and development of a Forward look triage to identify joint working.

2.14. The Chief Scientific Adviser indicated a strong preference for collaboration rather than siloing. She wants the Committees retain autonomy and expertise but encouraged convergence where it adds value.

2.15. The Chief Scientific Adviser set out what she sees as key priorities for the CSA role:

• System leadership across Home Office science and engineering

• Stronger cross government working, especially with MoJ, DfT, MOD, and Policing bodies

• Reducing duplication between departments
• Ensuring Home Office interests are considered early in cross government initiatives

2.16. The Chief Scientific Adviser floated an idea of creating a lighter touch advisory mechanism for emerging technology, following the SAGE model but without a crisis. This would short-circuit slow, fragmented engagement, bring the right people (policy, delivery, ethics, science) together early, and help manage emerging technologies before problems crystallise.

2.17. The Chief Scientific Adviser was explicit that behavioural and social science is increasingly in demand across the Home Office, yet currently there is no shared understanding of what it means or how it should be used, with different teams interpreting it very differently.

2.18. The Chief Scientific Adviser wanted to ensure clearer deployment of capability across the department, and less fragmentation and more strategic use.

2.19. The Chief Scientific Adviser emphasised the need to make the Home Office an attractive, rewarding place for scientists, and avoid situations where specialists feel stuck or underdeveloped. This included creating routes for growth, movement, and skills development. She described the Home Office’s science capability as relatively mature compared to several other departments, and something worth building on.

2.20. A STEAC member requested that it would be useful to have a clear organisational map of Home Office science and advisory structures alongside a glossary of acronyms and clearer induction materials.

2.21. The Head of Science Advice Delivery confirmed that a consolidated induction pack across SACs is being finalised, and updated organisational diagrams will be shared once confirmed.

Action 2604#03 Secretariat to circulate SAC-wide induction pack (incl. organisational map and acronyms glossary). The update to reflect recent structural changes.

Action 2604#04 Secretariat to circulate the final Home Office science advisory landscape diagram with all SACs

2.22. A member of STEAC raised concern that the importance of maintaining STEAC’s independently developed relationships and alignment should not crowd out organic relationship building (e.g. NCA).

2.23. The Head of Science Advice Delivery of confirmed continued support for autonomous relationship building. Security constraints acknowledged but manageable (SC/escorted access).

Action 2604#05 Secretariat to Support cross-committee working-Explore audit of expertise across Science Advisory Committees.

Action 2604#06 Head of Science Advice Delivery to enable multidisciplinary discussions develop forward look across SAC secretariats to identify cross-cutting topics (e.g. AI).

Action 2604#07 Head of Science Advice Delivery & Secretariats to trial improved collaboration and document-sharing tools with all SAC Chairs. Roll out to all committee members once resolved.

Action 2604#08 Head of Science Advice Delivery to Consider expansion of SCS–SAC pairing model beyond Chairs following trial structured pairings.

3 Update from the Head of Science Advice Delivery

3.1. It was confirmed Home Office science, digital, and innovation functions have been brought together under a single DG. This was a change to the previous structure and accountabilities within the department. Science advice is being repositioned as an enabling function for operational and policy delivery.

3.2. Attendees were advised that the initial meeting of science advisory committee chairs took place recently to improve coherence, visibility, and multidisciplinary working.

3.3. The Chairs discussed areas of development as well as practical barriers to effective delivery including:

• Document sharing and collaboration tools
• Lack of clarity across the department on when to engage SACs
• Duplication on crosscutting topics (e.g. AI)

3.4. The Head of Science Advice Delivery confirmed the following priorities to address the barriers identified by the committee chairs:

• Improve access and collaboration tools
• Establish clearer engagement models
• Strengthen relationships between SACs
• Communicate the impact of science advice more effectively

3.5. Officers also noted a new Permanent Secretary had officially started on Monday, there was acknowledgement that this will influence the ongoing Future Home Office Strategy.

3.6 .The Chair suggested exploring ways—internally or externally—to support deeper academic research where STEAC requires more detailed analysis. The Head of Science Advice Delivery agreed, noting existing ad hoc examples (e.g. UCL MSc projects) and the need to consider funding and a more formal approach.

4 Chair’s Update and review of Minutes and outstanding Actions

4.1. This Agenda Item was covered in the Chairs Introduction.

5 New Co-opted member of STEAC

5.1. The Chair invited the new Co-opted member to introduce themself and provide an overview of their expertise.

5.2. The new member introduced themselves Professor of Forensic Anthropology at the University of Dundee. Both an academic and a practitioner, emphasising expertise in both operational and academic delivery. Their capacity as former co chair of AESAC (Age estimation Science Advisory Committee), led to the Home Office invite to be co-opted on STEAC. It was also confirmed that they are the current position of Vice President of the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI), in a professional body and stressed that they bring hands on experience rather than purely theoretical expertise.

5.3. They explained that the Home Office was now commencing an exploration of how facial age estimation could be used to strengthen the age assessment process. It was confirmed the work is concerned with evaluating methods for estimating age, particularly where there is uncertainty around whether an individual is under or over 18. The key ethical concern is on avoiding misclassification, especially incorrectly classifying children as adults, which can place them in unsafe or inappropriate situations, whilst also avoiding misclassification in the opposite direction.

5.4. It was emphasised that protecting children from harm is central to the work, but that age estimation is inherently difficult, as humans are generally poor judges of age based on appearance alone, and even scientific methods carry uncertainty.

5.5. It was also confirmed that there is distinction between biological and chronological age. It was agreed that Facial Age Estimation measures biological age and not chronological age as these are fundamentally different concepts and must not be conflated.

5.6. It was agreed that this has a critical scientific and ethical distinction.

5.7. It was noted that the facial age estimation work was still in early stages and STEAC members would be kept informed as work commences. No detailed timelines were provided, reflecting that activity had not yet been finalised.

5.8. A STEAC member confirmed they were also conducting academic work on a similar aspect of age estimation and would share their analysis.

Action 2604#09 CSA Office / Project Team to confirm next steps and timeline for Facial Age Estimation work (CSA will be involved in this work). Action2604#10 Chair to share updates with STEAC on Facial Age Estimation progress. Action 2604#11 STEAC member to share work on FAE

6 Home Office Ethic Policy lead Introduction

6.1. The Chair welcomed the Home Office Ethics representative, who provided a brief overview of current activities.

6.2. The Home Office Ethics representative acknowledge the expertise within STEAC across areas such as digital, data, and AI, and iterated the value of engaging early to avoid duplication.

6.3 . The Home Office Ethics representative welcomed the suggestion that STEAC be involved earlier in the development process, rather than after decisions have been formed.

6.4. The Home Office Ethics representative noted that while there had previously been regular engagement with the Secretariat, this had lapsed due to capacity pressures on both sides and expressed a willingness to re-establish regular contact. Action 2604#12 Secretariat to arrange early engagement meeting with Home Office Ethics team. Input STEAC expertise into draft Ethics Strategy & Ethics workshops.
Action 2604#13 Secretariat to maintain regular Secretariat–Ethics Lead catchups for Ongoing ethics coordination.

7 Policy Standing Items update

7.0. Officers provided an oral update on behalf of the policy sponsor lead for Data and Identity team. This included a verbal update on the consultation on biometrics and facial recognition technology.

7.1. Members were advised that the consultation received approximately 13,000 responses, representing a very high level of public and stakeholder engagement. Respondents included Civil society organisations, Academics and legal experts, Policing bodies, Regulators, Industry, and Members of the public.

7.2. Members were informed around 10,000 responses resulted from two coordinated public campaigns, indicating strong public interest and concern. Officers confirmed engagement also included targeted official level engagement and a ministerial roundtable involving civil society organisations and Policing representatives.

7.3. Members were informed that Home Office’s Deliberative engagement sessions were run by an external agency, specifically designed to engage people less likely to respond to standard government consultations. These deliberative sessions took place in London and Manchester and included participants who were generally sceptical of police use of facial recognition & from racially minoritised backgrounds. This work generated a separate analytical report, which will be published alongside the government’s response.

7.4. Officers confirmed detailed findings were still subject to ministerial advice, and outlined early high level themes, including:

• Broad support for the existence of a regulatory framework for biometrics and facial recognition

• Strong concern about privacy, surveillance, and proportionality

• Where respondents argued certain technologies or uses should fall outside scope, this was typically framed as wanting those uses explicitly prohibited within a framework, rather than left unregulated.

• Overall consultation response was supportive of regulation, and not supportive of ungoverned or fragmented use of biometric technologies

7.5. Officers explained that the Home Office analysts have completed detailed quantitative analysis of responses. Work is underway on the draft government response and indicated that the government response is expected to be published in summer 2026. The response will set out conclusions from the consultation and describe the direction of travel for a revised governance framework. Primary legislation is anticipated, potentially in September 2026, subject to parliamentary scheduling.

7.6. STEAC members requested details on whether any dominant themes were emerging from responses.

7.7. Officers confirmed reiterated broad support for regulation and stressed that fuller detail would be published once ministerial clearance had been secured.

Action 2604#14 Provide update to STEAC for the Government response to Biometrics & Facial Recognition consultation. (Planned for summer publication). Action 2604#15 Secretariat to re-circulate January 2026 meeting update paper to all members.

HOB Update

7.8. Officers informed the Committee that the Home Office Biometrics (HOB) programme is scheduled to close as a programme from 2027, with biometric capability to move to a service based model. Members were informed that this change Is primarily structural and financial, not operational, reflecting a move away from repeated annual business case approval. This also supports more stable, customer funded delivery of biometric capabilities, and emphasised that this does not represent a reduction in activity, capability, or scrutiny.

7.9. HOB activity going forward will largely be policy led, with HOB providing delivery and technical support. Where new policy initiatives arise, HOB will continue to support implementation and share developments with STEAC where relevant. Areas such as fingerprints and international engagement (including with the EU) may see renewed activity, though these would be driven by policy rather than solely by HOB.

7.10. It was confirmed the transition to a service model will not change HOB’s engagement with STEAC. Regular light touch engagement will continue as monthly or six weekly, to provide transparency on customer demand and forthcoming work, and maintain visibility of HOB activity for ethical and advisory purposes. The service model simply changes funding and governance mechanisms, and HOB expects continued regular discussions on progress and demand.

7.11. Members questioned whether the reference to fingerprint work implied increased future activity, particularly in relation to EU engagement. Officers indicated that any increased activity is likely to be policy driven, not initiated by HOB alone. Where policy developments require technical input, HOB will support delivery. Relevant updates will be brought to STEAC where there are ethical or governance implications. 7.12. Officers also confirmed HOB focuses on delivery and capability with policy direction and steer coming from central Home Office teams. Coordination is ongoing, and overlaps will be managed through existing governance structures.

Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) update

7.13. Officers confirmed work on the Y STR expansion of the National DNA Database had previously been submitted to STEAC at an earlier stage. The programme is now moving from concept into delivery, having secured funding.

7.14. Officers indicated that the DNA Enhancement Programme has now received £15 million in funding over three years due to being explicitly linked to the government’s Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy. It is in the mobilisation phase, with the first programme board meeting imminent.

7.15. STEAC was informed that this is not just a technical IT change but a programme with significant operational and criminal justice implications

7.16. The funded programme includes an expansion of Y STR capability on the National DNA Database, replacement of the Contamination Elimination Database, which is currently ageing, and alignment with Forensic Science Regulator guidance.

7.17. There is potential for additional enhancements, subject to funding and delivery constraints and the representative made it clear that work will need to be carefully staged over the three year period. The strong governance arrangements, including a joint programme board, senior Home Office representation, and senior policing representation (including the chair of the forensic strategy board).

7.18. Engagement with policing, forensic service providers, and the criminal justice system is already underway, and providers have been informed ahead of Easter to prepare them for forthcoming changes

7.19. Officers confirmed expected benefits, included:

• Improved investigation of sexual offences and serious violent crime

• Support for cold cases, particularly where no active leads exist

• Increased confidence in forensic outcomes following high profile cases

• They referenced international experience (e.g. Singapore) suggesting: Significant increases in detection rates when Y STR capability is expanded

7.20. On contamination elimination, officers explained that automation will enable faster identification of contamination events, which reduces the risk of wasted investigations and wrongful suspicion, and quality assurance will be improved across the forensic pipeline.

7.21. It was confirmed STEAC will receive quarterly updates on the programme, and there will be defined points where advice is sought from the Committee as part of ongoing scrutiny and assurance.

Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner

OBSCC update

7.22. In response to the written update provided STEAC Chair asked about whether deeper research support could be enabled for STEAC projects (e.g. funded analysis, academic capacity).

7.23. Officers provided an example where this type of support was being used by the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. In his project that was being led by a Science and Engineering Fast streamer to look at how Overt Surveillance can support the Government’s target to reduce Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), the Office of the Commissioner will be utilising an unpaid Northumbria University Master’s student who will assist the Commissioner in this project.

7.24. It was confirmed the Commissioner’s VAWG project which is currently focussing on stakeholder engagement and identifying existing evidence that may support the project goals. Officers invited further engagement from the committee and mentioned that engagement with STEAC had commenced with participation in early-stage discussions and feed into work before draft papers are finalised.

Action 2604#16 Head of Science Advice Delivery to Explore mechanisms for deeper research engagement (MSc/PhD, partnerships) to consider funded and non-funded options.

8 BTP Live Facial Recognition Trials

8.1. The representative from BTP Operational lead presented on behalf of the Project lead for Operation Overwatch – Live Facial Recognition (LFR) pilot in railway environments. The committee were advised that the pilot would run for six months six month including:

• Operational model
• Legal and ethical framework
• Watchlist composition
• Governance and oversight
• Evaluation metrics
• Intended next steps

8.2. The BTP officers provided an Overview of Operation overwatch. Live Facial Recognition deployments in railway stations. BTP is the only UK force trialling a stand alone, deployable LFR system in rail environments (as opposed to vans or fixed CCTV). Deployments are Intelligence-led. Aligned to existing BTP crime tasking structures. Current deployments were limited to Greater London (B Division).

8.3. BTP officers stated that the technology & Supplier was supplied by Bedrock (Southampton based company), and using technology based on the algorithm from NEC NeoFACE, the same algorithm used by the Metropolitan Police Service, and South Wales Police, and previously tested by the National Physical Laboratory and US National Institute of Standards and Technology.

8.4. The pilot timeline was confirmed as following the approximate dates provided:

• Feb–Jun 2026: Live pilot deployments
• Jun–Sep 2026: Pilot review phase
• Extension likely to Nov 2026

8.5. The committee were advised that Deployment Model would be conducted alongside other policing operations and would never be used as a standalone tactic. Camera placements would be positioned to encourage face forward flow and advance signage provided.

8.6. Alternative routes would be offered where possible during the pilot to ensure Human in the loop safeguards. The procedure would be:

1. Algorithm generates alert 2. First human operator checks 3. Engagement officer performs second check 4. Only then is an approach made

8.7. The BTP officers indicated the Watchlists Current criteria was for Wanted individuals only, including those on High harm warrants (Category A & B), and those with offences involving: Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), Sexual offending, Robbery, and Serious violence.

8.8. The key controls involved watchlists which are compiled no more than 24 hours before deployment, reviewed by intelligence leads, and signed off by Gold Commander prior to deployment, and are disproportionality explicitly reviewed before approval. Future considerations that are not yet active, include Ancillary court orders, bail conditions, missing persons (with limitations), and shared national watchlists via NPCC (exploratory).

8.9. The BTP representative advised that the Legal & Governance Framework had reliance on:

• Common law policing powers
• PACE s64A
• Data Protection Act
• Human Rights Act
• Equality Act
• College of Policing APP
• Bridges judgment principles (South Wales Police)

8.10. Documents that had published in the public domain included:

• DPIA (Stages 1 & 2)
• IEIA
• Legal mandate documentation
• Deployment reports (after each operation)

8.11. Oversight was provided by the British Transport Police Authority (as BTP has no PCC), Internal Independent Advisory Groups, and external engagement with regulators (notably IPCO).

8.12. BTP officers indicated intended measures including:

• False alert rate (target: <0.1%)
• Recognition time
• Arrest and charge outcomes
• Crime reduction at deployment sites
• Repeat offender identifications
• Public feedback (QR codes; sentiment analysis)

8.13. Officers also confirmed Monthly blue list testing involved known individuals seeded into deployments to test system performance.

8.14. Concerns were raised by STEAC members including:

• Independent testing specific to rail station environments
• Statistical validity of performance metrics
• Consistency of watchlist thresholds across forces
• Oversight gaps (OBSCC not explicitly referenced in slides)
• Engagement officer training and escalation practice
• Transparency in public reporting

8.15. BTP officers acknowledged the relevance of concerns raised and agreed to feed issues back internally.

8.16. STEAC agreed the discussion raised significant unresolved issues. Secretariat agreed to arrange a follow up meeting, to provide a more focused and practical advice to BTP on risks and gaps in the pilot including statistical experts, performance analysts, and clarified engagement expectations. Action 2604#17 Secretariat to schedule a follow up meeting, with the focused follow-up technical session with BTP on LFR pilot (Statistics, equality impacts, testing). Action 2604#18 Secretariat & BTP Clarify purpose and expectations of STEAC input into BTP LFR pilot (to Define value-added role). Action 2604#19 Secretariat to invite CoP to a future quarterly meeting to provide insight on national standards and APP in relation to Live Facial Recognition and assist in contextualise consistency across forces.

9 AOB

9.1. The dates for 2026 meetings of STEAC were previously agreed. The next quarterly meeting is 23/06/2026 via Microsoft teams.

Action 2604#20 Update and maintain Actions Log, carrying forward unresolved items. Flag urgent items as required.

Annex A

Attendees

STEAC:

• Prof Richard Guest (Chair)
• Mr Giles Herdale
• Mr Dave Lewis
• Prof Emeritus Charles Raab
• Prof Tom Sorell
• Prof Denise Syndercombe-Court
• Prof Anne-Maree Farrell,
• Prof Niamh Nic Daeid,
• Prof Marion Oswald

STEAC Co-optee:

• Prof Lucina Hackman

Officials:

• STEAC Secretary and Secretariat
• Home Office Chief Scientific Advisor
• Home Office- Head of Science Advice Delivery
• Representative from Home Office Policy
• HO Ethics representative
• Representatives from Forensic Information Database Service
• Representatives from HOB
• Representative from Office Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner
• Representatives from BTP
• Representative from Office Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner

Apologies: STEAC: Dr Nora Ni Loideain, Prof Penney Lewis, Ms Elisabeth Mackay &, Dr Matt James  

Annex B: Actions marked as closed.

The following list outlines the actions which were agreed for closure during the April 2026 open meeting.

Actions are recorded with a reference in the format year_month_action number to reflect the meeting at which they were recorded.

2501#02	BFEG (PW) to investigate the development of mobile driving licenses and report back.
2504#08	Secretariat to arrange a follow up meeting with the NPCC to continue the discussion from the April quarterly meeting. (Due to time constraints, it was suggested that any further questions relating to AI in the NPCC are picked up at a future point)
2507#01	Secretariat to establish whether minutes from the meeting on facial age estimation could be shared with BFEG members and circulate if appropriate.
2507#02	BFEG Secretariat to engage with the Home Office Science Advisory Committee Secretariat to ensure engagement with BFEG during future Research, Development and Innovation reviews.
2507#06	Secretariat to share a PowerPoint presentation with members which outlined STEAC’s work, remit and operation for external use/audiences.
2510#01	Members to provide comment on the STEAC website and a follow up conversation to be arranged around republication of materials previously published under the BFEG banner to be moved/removed to the STEAC website
2510#02	Secretariat - Introduction to be arranged with Amanda-Jane Balfour (Director of Forensic Services in the Home Office
2510#03	Secretariat to arrange Future introduction with Dr Marc Bailey, the Forensic Science Regulator
2510#04	Secretariat to liaise with Alex Macdonald re. policy lead in HO for ID cards
2510#06	Sec to liaise with Chair on appropriate action for rescheduling with Op Tabula
2601#01	Secretariat to explore engagement between the Institute of Engineering and Technology and STEAC
2601#04	The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner to share updates with STEAC on review of police forces.
2601#05	Secretariat to arrange a dedicated meeting between STEAC and the Policy lead to discuss the legal framework for live facial recognition and other biometrics consultation.
2601#07	Secretariat to establish if the presentation from NCA officials can be shared and circulate if possible
2601#08	Secretariat to schedule a further interaction with NCA officials
2601#09	Sec to provide an organisational structure chart to STEAC following changes implemented in early 2026.
2601#10	Secretariat to re-circulate the science advice function presentation slides.
2601#11	Head of Science Advice function to liaise with the Cabinet Office to outline the differences between different Science Advisory Committee’s, particularly around statutory vs non statutory footing and associated operations.

The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) was the forerunner to the Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee. BFEG was renamed STEAC at the end of 2025.