In this Washington Post editorial, the Post comments on polygraph policy in light of the National Academy of Sciences’ devastatingly critical report on polygraphy, concluding:
One obvious conclusion from this sobering account is that more rigorous studies of polygraphs and their applications in government need to take place. A large number of people every year are put on administrative leave as a result of having failed — or having not conclusively passed — polygraph exams. And many people the government wishes to hire become off limits as well. The toll, in other words, is high — both in human terms and in terms of the people who become unavailable to public service. To the extent this high cost is unnecessary, even counterproductive, people ought to know. And it is certainly wrong to go on expanding public use of the technology in the areas in which its effectiveness is most questionable. Those who defend the polygraph often cite the fact that people, believing that they will be caught by the lie detector, confess to significant breaches instead of facing the exam. But government’s most sensitive employment decisions should not be made by placebo effect. Courts generally do not use polygraphs, out of concern about their reliability. Neither should the executive branch in areas where it cannot persuasively demonstrate the effectiveness of the tool.