Abstract: The Home Office decision to bring the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator within a system of statutory regulation has been welcomed by many forensic practitioners. However, the legal implications of the introduction of a Forensic Science Regulator Bill (HC Bill 180) deserve further scrutiny. This article analyses the published Bill, critiquing governmental attempts to codify and standardise ‘forensic science activities in England and Wales’. The article focusses on the articulation of normative understandings of the ‘application of scientific method’, raising concerns over the implementation of normative scientific terms within the marketised system of forensic provision and accreditation in operation in England and Wales. Thus, the article adds a further dimension to recent studies of the regulator’s role, and its ambiguous nature in relation to the creation and promulgation of standards (McCartney & Amoako: 2018). Through its exploration of the deployment of normative standards borrowed from the scientific field, the article demonstrates the way in which criminal justice actors sought to resolve the internal contradictions of marketised forensic provision, achieving partial resolution through the importation of a ‘legal transplant’: the enhanced Daubert criteria. This test - introduced by the Criminal Practice Rules of England and Wales (Ward: 2015) 1 - outlines the procedure for identifying and testing ‘scientific’ evidence. Thus, through its comparative analysis, the paper seeks to develop broader understandings of the role of standards within marketised multidisciplinary systems.