Yes, forensic science is not 100% reliable. Take finger prints as an example. When police collect evidences at a crime scene, the finger prints are not perfect. They may only a partial image of a finger or they could be blurry. If a suspect's finger prints are to be matched against them, forensic experts have to make a judgement call on whether they match. There are general standards on what is considered an acceptable but opinions of the suspect's guilt due to his skin color or other bias may affect the decision. So forensics is not always reliable.
Most forensic sciences <em><u>lack good information</u></em> about how often examiners <em><u>make mistakes</u></em> a basic requirement of any good science. Experts testifying in court often claim error rates for their technique is zero.
Even the best of scientific techniques have an <em> </em><em>error </em><em>rate </em><em>,</em><em> hence</em><em>,</em><em>we </em><em>can </em><em>say </em><em>that </em><em>forensic</em><em> science</em><em> </em><em>isn't</em><em> </em><em>always</em><em> </em><em>reliable</em>
Metabolism is the process by which your body converts what you eat and drink into energy. During this complex biochemical process, calories in food and beverages are combined with oxygen to release the energy your body needs to function so i would say that it is A but i could be wrong so good luck
