Home | Issue Briefs | Events | Reports | Links | About | Action

Issue Brief

November 6, 2000

Congress Approves Increased Polygraph Testing for Energy Department Employees

by Matthew Zimmerman
Project Coordinator, AAAS Science and Human Rights Program

On October 30, President Clinton signed into law a bill authorizing funding for the Department of Defense. Included is a provision requiring polygraph testing for all Department of Energy (DOE) employees with access to certain classified intelligence information. Last year's defense authorization required polygraph screening for several thousand employees. This new law takes another step, further increasing the number of lab employees who must be tested.

The congressional demand for polygraph testing resulted from several recent high-profile security lapses in DOE national labs. However, the push for widespread screening dismayed many lab employees. Polygraph testing is being used to send a message about the severity of security lapses to the employees. In this context, it is seen as a form of punishment. Another major problem of particular importance to scientists is the questionable effectiveness of polygraph testing.

A polygraph test measures the subject's blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity as the individual is asked a series of questions. Changes in these measures from an established baseline supposedly indicate an emotional reaction when lying in response to a question. This emotional reaction is presumed to be fear of detection, but that presumption is tenuous. The reactions measured may be caused by any number of feelings, including fear of registering as a liar even when you're telling the truth.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have long maintained that the polygraph is a useful tool. This is especially true when the machine is used on a subject who believes in it. A subject who believes that his lies would be detected may be more likely to register an emotional reaction during the test. Moreover, the threat of a "lie detector" can be used to intimidate a subject into confessing, even without valid results. In terms of employee screening, the threat of a polygraph test may also deter employees from engaging in illicit activities.

It is difficult, however, to say whether or not a polygraph test can actually detect lies. There are many variables involved, and the outcome depends on the judgment of the person conducting the examination. Even if the data collected in a polygraph are accurate, interpretations may vary. In the case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a polygraph examination administered in 1998 initially indicated that he did not commit espionage against the United States. Two additional polygraph examiners studied the same data, with the same conclusion. However, the FBI drew the opposite conclusion in a later examination.

In the face of such uncertainty, employees at DOE national labs are understandably reluctant to submit to the tests. The emphasis on testing has proved bad for morale, according to Senator Pete V. Domenici (R-NM). He claims that scientists have already begun to quit in frustration. "Security will be a moot point if our national laboratories fail to achieve scientific advances worth protecting," he said.

Since the Wen Ho Lee debacle and the case of the missing hard drives earlier this year, Congress has been pushing for more widespread polygraph testing. It is a swift and obvious way to assuage security concerns. However, whether or not polygraph testing is actually effective in protecting national security and promoting the nation's science enterprise remains in question.

Issues

• Widespread polygraph testing is favored by Congress, but is it good policy? Other issues need to be addressed, such as confusion about the rules governing classified information. Polygraph testing emphasizes suspicion and control of employees and labs, rather than cooperation and understanding of the practice of science.
  
  
• Mandatory widespread polygraph testing for DOE employees could damage morale and recruitment. Polygraph testing is perceived as punitive and ineffectual.
  
  
• Polygraph testing may be useful for law enforcement purposes, but its scientific validity and application in other contexts remain unproven.

Resources

Aftergood, Steven. "Polygraph Testing and the DOE National Laboratories," Science, Volume 290, Number 5493, Issue of 3 Nov 2000, pp. 939-940.

The American Polygraph Association

Frater, Elizabeth. "Polarized Over Polygraphs," National Journal, September 9, 2000, pp. 2800.

McCutcheon, Chuck. "Bill Mandates Widespread Polygraphing at Nuclear Laboratories," CQ Weekly, October 21, 2000, pp. 2491.

U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation, November 1983.