{"id":4037,"date":"2003-09-05T15:30:03","date_gmt":"2003-09-05T20:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=4037"},"modified":"2021-03-11T03:19:32","modified_gmt":"2021-03-11T08:19:32","slug":"energy-dept-to-limit-polygraphs-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2003\/09\/05\/energy-dept-to-limit-polygraphs-use\/","title":{"rendered":"“Energy Dept. to Limit Polygraphs’ Use”"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n

Associated Press correspondent Robert Gehrke reports<\/a> in this article published in Newsday.<\/em> Excerpt: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

WASHINGTON — The Energy Department plans to use fewer polygraph tests to detect espionage at energy labs after a study said employees could be unjustly accused — in effect reversing a policy that grew out of the Wen Ho Lee investigation.<\/p>

The department will continue to use the so-called lie detector tests to screen a smaller number of workers with access to the most critically sensitive material — roughly 4,500 instead of more than 20,000 — Deputy Energy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow told members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.<\/p>

A National Academies of Science study found that the lie detector tests were not an effective means to screen for spies and would almost certainly result in “false positives” — innocent lab workers mistakenly coming under suspicion for espionage.<\/p>

That may be the case in nearly one in six cases, based on the NAS study, and could damage morale at the labs and discourage top-tier scientists from working there, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., a longtime opponent of the polygraph program.<\/p>

If 20,000 people were tested, 3,000 would fail the test, Bingaman said.<\/p>

“We believe national security is too important to be left with such a blunt instrument,” said Stephen Fienberg, chairman of the National Research Council committee that reviewed the use of polygraphs.<\/p>

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said McSlarrow’s revisions mark a major improvement, but “I’m still skeptical about the effect of what they’re going to have.”<\/p>

The Energy Department began requiring employees take lie detector tests several years ago in the aftermath of the Wen Ho Lee controversy at the department’s nuclear weapons laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M. Lee was accused in 1999 of mishandling nuclear weapons codes; the case ended with a plea bargain that freed the Taiwanese-born scientist.<\/p>

Concerns that the tests were inaccurate prompted congressional demands for the NAS review and that the Energy Department incorporate the results into their polygraph program.<\/p>

“Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice,” the NAS report stated. “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.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Associated Press correspondent Robert Gehrke reports in this article published in Newsday. Excerpt: WASHINGTON — The Energy Department plans to use fewer polygraph tests to detect espionage at energy labs after a study said employees could be unjustly accused — in effect reversing a policy that grew out of the Wen Ho Lee investigation. The …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[287,14,70],"class_list":{"0":"post-4037","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-doe","8":"tag-national-academy-of-sciences","9":"tag-polygraph-screening","10":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4037","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4037"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4037\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4038,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4037\/revisions\/4038"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4037"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4037"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}