Andrea Widener reports for the Contra Costa County Times. Excerpt:
Last fall, a panel of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences found that polygraph tests are unproven, and perhaps even dangerous, as a tool to search for potential spies at the nation’s nuclear weapons labs.
Its measures of heart rate, breathing and sweaty palms are easily tripped by the nervous but innocent, and easily fooled by experts. What’s more, the panel said, the polygraph gives security experts a misleading sense of security because spies can pass the screening test.
Despite this overwhelming finding, and a congressional mandate to reevaluate use of the test, the Department of Energy has stuck by the polygraph.
Its policy, released in April, is essentially unchanged: Thousands of nuclear weapons employees must take the test to keep their top security clearance.
The agency, which oversees nuclear weapons labs and production plants, said its mission of protecting nuclear secrets overrides the risks, and it can’t take away the polygraph until something better replaces it.
“The DOE does not believe that the issues the (National Academy) raised about the polygraph’s accuracy are sufficient to warrant a decision by DOE to abandon it as a screening tool,” was the agency’s official statement.
Lab employees and other critics say Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham’s decision was misguided. A bad test is worse than no test at all, they say, especially because some polygraph test givers have abused their position by asking inappropriate questions.
It hurts morale of the employees the agency says it values — longtime scientists with nuclear weapons design and testing experience.
“We want an end to screening with polygraph testing entirely,” said Jeff Colvin, a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory scientist who follows the issue for the Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers.
The rule could still change. The DOE is taking comments until June 13. Several congressmen, including Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., are calling for hearings to force the DOE to explain its choice and are calling for legislation to prevent polygraph tests from continuing. But few believe the agency will reverse itself on its own.
“If the National Academy of Sciences doesn’t convince them, I don’t know what is going to,” said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, who represents the area that includes Lawrence Livermore and Sandia/California labs and wants House hearings. “It’s voodoo. And voodoo doesn’t protect our secrets.”
Lab scientists have long been subjected to polygraph tests, but until 1999 it was only a small number with special security clearance. Then, in the wake of a security and espionage scandal surrounding Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, someone slipped a mandate into a congressional bill that required up to 15,000 DOE employees be tested. The subsequent uproar caused a policy change, and DOE commissioned the National Academy study.
The 18-month review said polygraphs are occasionally useful in interrogations. But there is no evidence to suggest they can sort spies from loyal employees or to deter those who might become spies.
Panel members say they are “disappointed” that DOE essentially ignored the study, and that the agency shouldn’t rely on 1920s technology.
Polygraph testing isn’t like treating a cold with grandma’s chicken soup, which may help but won’t hurt, said David Faigman, a panel member who studies science and law at UC’s Hastings College of the Law. Negative polygraph tests can lead security officials to believe secrets are safe when they’re not, endangering security.
“I think (DOE’s choice) is a naive approach to the problem,” Faigman said. “There are bones in this particular chicken soup.”