Response to the National Academy of Science's Report on Polygraphy

Polygraph Chat Room

Response to the National Academy of Science's Report on Polygraphy
back to article index

As many of you are aware, the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) has issued its log-awaited report based upon its
"study" on the validity and reliability of polygraphy.

Since the NAS did not attempt to solicit any input
concerning polygraph from the American Polygraph
Association, American Association of Police Polygraphists
or any other national or international polygraph
professional association, it became obvious that the
"study" was taking on the odor of being "wired" from the
beginning.

I as well as many others in the world, was always under
the impression that scientists were supposed to take raw
data and analyze it, evaluate it, weigh it, and draw some
independent conclusions - and let the "chips fall where
they may." I thought that a group as prestigious as the
NAS would take an independent and inductive approach to
their study. I was incorrect on both assumptions. As
Murphy dictates, "Assumption is the Mother of all
screw-ups."

For those unaware of the inductive versus deductive
approach, the inductive approach involves the gathering of
evidence and information, and then once and adequate
amount has been gathered to evaluate, then some theories
can be drawn, and then the theories can be tested to see
which one or ones have any credence. The deductive
approach is to start with a basic theory, then gather
evidence to test the theory. The danger and inherent
weakness of this approach is obvious - that which does
not support the proposed theory is often disregarded.

A prime example is the Kennedy assassination. The theory
was that Oswald was the sniper and acted alone, and all
evidence refuting that was disregarded or even twisted
(like the bullet that had to take a 90 degree turn in
mid-air to be able to hit Kennedy and Connelly to keep the
"lone assassin" theory viable) to support the basic theory
even though evidence to the contrary was even greater in
quantity and quality than that which was used to support
the theory.

The NAS "study" was even worse. It took the theory that
polygraph was invalid and unreliable and set out to prove
it. Even though there were over 1000 studies on polygraphy
available, many of which were recent studies, they
selected only about 57 of the antiquated ones, and these
were confined almost exclusively to use of polygraphy for
personnel screening. Not one of these studies meets the
requirements of the Research Standard established by the
American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) for a
study to be considered valid. No legitimate polygraphist
will ever argue that personnel screening examinations have
a high validity and reliability since the questions have
no specific frame of reference and very little time of
reference on which to test the person. Even with the use
of control questions techniques, as studies by Charles
Honts have indicated, the validity and reliability is not
all that higher than the personnel screening examinations
conducted without control questions techniques.

Although the validity and reliability is not as high as
that of specific issue control questions tests, WHICH THE
NAS IGNORED ALTOGETHER, and grouped specific-issue tests
in with its blanket statement that polygraphy doesn't work,
I would like the NAS or AntiPolygraph.org or any other
group to provide us with some other form of personnel
screening that is even close to being better, fairer, more
reliable, more valid, and/or more accurate than personnel
screening with polygraphy. They won't be able to respond
to that challenge because they have nothing whatsoever to
respond with that has any credence.

What many people have little awareness of is that the NAS
study was funded by donations from the scientists working
for the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) who felt that
they were being unfairly treated in being required to take
polygraph examinations as a result of the aftermath of the
Wen Ho Lee situation. They feel that they should not have
to answer to the American public even though they produce
weapons of mass destruction. They forget rather quickly
that Mr. Lee was exonerated by a polygraph examination.
The secrets that were lost to foreign nations had to come
from somebody in that organization so why should they feel
that they should be exempt from security precautions? They
are just unhappy that Dave Renzleman and Anne Reed wouldn't
put up with their "B.S." so they commissioned their fellow
"scientists" to conduct the "study." The NAS was paid
$850,000 to conduct their "study."

It is obvious that I question the word "study" because no
study was conducted. Only anti-polygraph studies were
compiled. The "study" took a totally deductive reasoning
approach to the point that the appearance is that the USDOE
scientists paid for a result and got it. That is why I use
the term "wired." The exact same approach was used in the
1980's with the Office of Assessment Technology (OTA) study
was done that resulted in the Employee Polygraph Protection
Act (EPPA) being passed. Please don't get me wrong here
because I believe that EPPA was necessary since there were
many instances of employee abuse resulting from unfair
and/or incompetent polygraph testing. EPPA just went too
far in its scope; however, the spirit of EPPA was very
necessary. The OTA "study", like the NAS "study", was
flawed and unfair and both took the same approach with the
basic premise that "polygraphy doesn't work, and we are
bent on proving that".

The American Polygraph Association took the diplomatic
approach in its response to the NAS study by posting its
retort on its website. The problem with the APA's approach,
however, is that the NAS report received nationwide, and
likely, worldwide coverage, and most of those who would have
read about this in the newspapers or magazines or who heard
about it or saw it on news reports, would neither have even
the faintest idea that a polygraph website even exists nor
any idea how to find it. In essence, the rebuttal, which was
excellently written, will be actually seen and read by very
few people. As most of the readers know, I am an ardent
supporter of APA (and AAPP); however, I disagree this time
with the method in which the NAS report was handled. My
feeling is that the various national and international
polygraph associations should take a more proactive approach
to dealing with this, as well as other, anti-polygraph media
reports. We should be able to attract positive media
attention as well rather than accepting constant attacks
from opposing parties. By the same token, the APA, AAPP,
etc. may be establishing a program to take a proactive
approach to the NAS report. Since I am not privy to the
communications or plans of the APA or AAPP Boards, my
disagreement may well be a moot point.

I think that the belief of many is that this will just "go
away". I disagree. I think it will be linked to additional
and continuing attacks until enough "evidence" has been
amassed to present to the various legislatures, either state
or federal, to eliminate polygraph use altogether - even if
a little at a time. The more likely event will be that we
will "go away" unless we begin to take the offensive approach
rather than the defense approach. Many of the readers of this
publication are members of one or more of the various
associations - express your concerns to them. If we continue
to act like sheep, we will be among the ranks of those who
became "ex-polygraphists" after 1988.

What is a Polygraph? (FAQ)
Polygraph Associations || Polygraph Schools
Equipment & Software || Insurance || Home