The Associated Press reports in this article published by the Albuquerque Journal:
LOS ALAMOS — The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed reducing the number of employees subject to lie detector tests, but opponents of the tests say the department misconstrued National Academy of Sciences findings on their use.
The revised rule would allow random polygraph tests, but will prohibit managers from relying solely on those tests to take action against employees.
The Energy Department “proposes to conclude that the utility of polygraphs is strong enough to merit their use in certain situations, for certain classes of individuals and with certain protections that minimize legitimate concerns,” according to the DOE’s revised polygraph rule published Friday.
In April 2003, the DOE proposed fewer polygraph tests after a study said employees could be unjustly accused. The National Academy of Sciences found lie detector tests weren’t an effective means to screen for spies and could result in “false positives” — innocent lab workers coming under suspicion for espionage.
The DOE began requiring employees take lie detector tests following the Wen Ho Lee controversy at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Lee was accused in 1999 of mishandling nuclear weapons codes; the case ended with a plea bargain that freed him after nine months.
Concerns over the tests prompted congressional demands for the NAS review and that the Energy Department incorporate the results into its polygraph program.
“Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice,” the NAS said. “Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violations from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.”
The April 2003 proposal reduced the number of people who would be required to take the tests from 20,000 to about 4,000, then added a pool of 6,000 employees who would be tested randomly.
The latest proposal doesn’t estimate the number of employees who could be randomly tested but said the total would be much lower.
The DOE misconstrued the NAS findings on polygraph tests and “unduly relied on the counsels of bureaucrats with a vested interest in the perpetuation” of such tests, George W. Maschke of AntiPolygraph.org wrote the Los Alamos Monitor in an e-mail after the latest draft rule was published.
Stephen Fienberg, who headed the National Research Council committee that reviewed polygraph use, told a Senate committee hearing in September 2003 that the scientific foundations of the screening for national security “were weak at best, and are insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.”
While acknowledging the DOE should use all effective tools available to conduct thorough background checks, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., expressed concerns “that DOE would pursue a polygraph policy at odds with the National Academy of Sciences findings.”
“While polygraph tests might be effective as an investigative tool, there is no evidence it is a useful screening tool so I’m not clear on why the DOE wants to use it for that purpose,” he said.