You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.
Regarding scientists' reactions, see Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff of Sandia National Laboratories' letter to Senator Richard Shelby, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who pushed to add some 5,000 DOE employees to the number to be subjected to polygraph "tesing":
excellent site, your links to recent publications have proven invaluble to my research. I have some remaining questions about the CI polygraphs slated for use in the Department of Energy. With the recent expansion of the 2000 NDAA sec. 3154, thousands more top scientists will be sugjected to the indignity of the polygraph. What speculation exists on the reactions of these scientists? As of yet, I have been unable to locate any mention of a scientists' movement in reaction to the latest modification of DOE Polygraph policy. Are the scientists at the national labs so disheartened that they are no longer reacting?
Posted by: George Maschke (Guest) Posted on: Nov 12th, 2000 at 8:55pm
President Clinton, in signing H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001, took issue with the act's expansion of the Department of Energy's polygraph screening program to encompass some 20,000 employees and contractors:
...I am deeply disappointed that the Congress has taken upon itself to set greatly increased polygraph requirements that are unrealistic in scope, impractical in execution, and that would be strongly counterproductive in their impact on our national security. The bill also micromanages the Secretary of Energy's authority to grant temporary waivers to the polygraph requirement in a potentially damaging way, by explicitly directing him not to consider the scientific vitality of DOE laboratories. This directs the Secretary not to do his job, since maintaining the scientific vitality of DOE national laboratories is essential to our national security and is one of the Secretary's most important responsibilities. I am therefore signing the bill with the understanding that it cannot supersede the Secretary's responsibility to fulfill his national security obligations.
The President's complete statement may be read on-line at:
These remarks seem to be President Clinton's first public pronouncements on polygraph policy. Better late than never.
The President is correct in stating that Congress' greatly increased polygraph requirements "would be strongly counterproductive in their impact on our national security." He might also consider that if polygraphs are strongly counterproductive in the Department of Energy, they may be counterproductive elsewhere in government, too.