The relative ease with which ABC beat the polygraph "test" speaks to just one of the many vulnerabilities of the deeply flawed polygraph process.

For some years now I have been calling on the American Polygraph Association to undertake a polygraph countermeasure challenge series, made integral to APA seminars, wherein randomly chosen polygraph operators would face a crew trained in countermeasures.

The APA has roundly condemned such an activity, with some polygraph establishment notables dismissing it as a "circus stunt."

No surprise there -- except avoiding a countermeasure challenge series suggests that the APA is actually running from science, not embracing science as they claim to be.

Why is an organization that professes to be "dedicated to the use of evidence-based scientific methods" running like hell from what would be the most telling experiment of them all?

Self-preservation.

In my opinion, such a countermeasure challenge series would plainly show that aptly applied countermeasures would be successful more often than not, rendering the "test" essentially invalid.

Given that polygraph is primarily about one thing -- money -- revealing the test's vulnerability to countermeasures would run counter to the industry's goals.

In other words, it would be bad for bu$iness.

So, the polygraph validity charade goes on.

Meanwhile, absent a polygraph countermeasure challenge series, the APA's flattering claims of polygraph accuracy should, in my opinion, be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.