Latest news with #Reagen

Boston Globe

Polygraph tests are scientifically unreliable. Here's why the Trump administration is using them anyway.

Advertisement The executive order precipitated immense pushback, both from members of Reagen's Cabinet and from members of Congress. Then-Secretary of State George Shultz I led Advertisement Polygraph tests measure autonomic nervous system reactions and how anxious a person is in response to a set of structured questions. Undermining the entire purpose of the tests is that a person's anxiety is not directly associated with their truthfulness. There is no unique psychophysical reaction associated with deception. Our OTA conclusions have stood the test of time and have been corroborated by subsequent comprehensive analyses, including Although the administration scaled back its ambitions regarding use of the tests in the wake of the 1983 controversy, government agencies have continued to use the tests. One example of the danger of relying on polygraph testing appears in the case of Aldrich Ames. A CIA agent, Ames was arrested in 1994 for selling information to the Soviets that comprised the entire US intelligence operation in the Soviet Union. He passed several polygraph tests. But if polygraph tests are not accurate, why are they still used? Perhaps the key reason for their continued use is to make a powerful statement about the government's concern with how information is handled by those with access to classified information or, in some cases, information that would be politically inconvenient to be made public. Even if polygraph tests are not accurate, the threat of a test can serve as a deterrent or as an interrogation tool to elicit admissions. The danger, however, is that the government fails to detect lies that damage national security and it opens the door to misidentifying truthful individuals whose anxiety is provoked by the test. Advertisement All of us, inside and outside of government, know far more about the flaws of polygraph testing today than we did in 1983, but no one in government seems to care. That the Trump administration, which has expressed hostility to the scientific community, should embrace a technology that is regarded by reputable researchers as pseudo-scientific at best is not surprising. Congress has diminished capacity to understand and evaluate technology. As well, we do not have a figure such as Shultz, ready to put his job on the line to defend the integrity and professionalism of his federal employees and their critical work. The loss is not just for government workers, but for all of us who care about the work of government.