Brad Lee Holian, a Laboratory Associate at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and fellow of the American Physical Society, is organizing employee resistance against planned random polygraph and drug screening at the lab. Holian, who has worked as a theoretical physicist at LANL for more than thirty years, has publicized his proposal via the blog LANL: The Corporate Story. Holian writes, among other things:
Polygraphy is an insulting affront to scientists, since a committee of the National Academy of Sciences has declared that, beyond being inadmissible in court, there is no scientific basis for polygraphs. In my opinion, by agreeing to be polygraphed, one thereby seriously jeopardizes his or her claim to being a scientist, which is presumably the principal reason for employment for many scientists at Los Alamos….
He proposes that laboratory employees sign a letter to the LANL’s director along the lines of the following:
Director Anastasio:
I refuse to be subjected to polygraph testing for any reason whatsoever. Polygraphs are inadmissible in a court of law and have no scientific basis.
Signed,
-Brad Lee Holian (blhksh@comcast.net)
In an earlier post on this blog, AntiPolygraph.org expressed the concern that while an announced Department of Energy plan to curtail its polygraph screening program might reduce the number of persons subject to polygraph screening, it might not reduce the number of polygraph examinations administered if random polygraph screening were stepped up to ensure full employment for DOE’s polygraph operators.
Polygraphs are admissible in court under certain circumstances. Where are these people getting their information?
It would have been more precise for Holian to say that polygraphs are generally inadmissible in a court of law. The fact remains that U.S. courts have generally looked upon polygraph “evidence” with disdain. And Holian is precisely correct in saying that polygraphy has no scientific basis.
Maschke wouldn’t know scientific evidence if it bit him on the butt. As for the rest of you out there, polygraph is most definately admissable in court, and will continue to be allowed into more cases as time and knowledge about the polygraph progress.
Holian’s arguments about drug screening are also flawed. Like Ed, I also wonder where he gets his information. Arguing that good observation by managers negates the need for testing is naive and has no basis in the real world. Much of drug screening is about deterrent, which has been shown on countless occasions to be effective even with a low volume of tests being carried out.