I have to agree with the original commenter. No job is important enough to risk ruining someone's life. Let's take a whistleblower type of scenario. If you're working for a company and come across evidence that there is unethical or illegal activity taking place, as a human being you have an obligation to do something about this.

I'm not sure that it has anything to do with personal qualifications. In the case of DNA analysis, I would run the test again. Or better yet, get a co-worker to run it. If they get the same result, then I would feel pretty good about my decision.

Should you interrupt the chain of command if you disagree with your boss' decision to go with the cheaper manufacturer? Probably not if it's for hardware to hold a table together, your decision should be different if it's for hardware to hold an aircraft together.

In this context, as in general business, I tend to follow one guiding principle:

I should be able to accept without shame, if not with satisfaction, the general knowledge of what I had done.

Consequences? Heck, yes.

Adulthood is about making choices, about choosing which door to open, and about taking responsibility and dealing with the consequences.

I concur, but wonder why it wouldn't make sense that the technician present his concerns TO THE JUDGE. Running to the Inspector General or another impartial source of redress is not as notorious as running "to the enemy" (providing arguably inside dope to the defense lawyers), but perhaps just as effective.

I feel the same in a corporate atmosphere. Don't back-stab the roadblocker, but consider getting an arbitrator to provide some leverage to the conflict. That "rock" might just budge after all, and without getting the whistle blower kicked off the mountain. (Sorry for the excessive metaphors, it's ... Wednesday, my metaphor day.)

Bob, your advice was right on the mark as usual. You should only bypass the chain of command in extreme situations where your knowledge and experience exceed that of the chain of command and you are positive that you are right. Otherwise, do your best to present your recommendation and trust the leaders to make a rational decision.

The DNA technician has access to one piece of information. Yes, it is an important piece, but not the only one. The lead investigator has access to all the relevant information. Suppose the DNA technician went around the lead investigator and presented his findings to the opposing lawyer. Then, the technician later found out that the DNA belonged to an accomplice of the accused person. Would your commentor still think that bypassing the chain of command was the best idea in this case?

There are times when it may be appropriate to bypass the chain of command, but only if you have ALL THE FACTS and are WILLING TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. I have seen people ruin careers and make fools of themselves for bypassing the chain of command when they did not have all the facts.