Johnn,

In its response to the NAS report, the American Polygraph Association complains:

Quote:


It is true that the APA was not invited to participate in the deliberations of the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. But neither was anyone else invited. The Committee's deliberations were private, and appropriately so.

A month or so before the NAS began its polygraph study, a proposed membership list of the polygraph review committee was published, and public comment was invited regarding the proposed members. To the best of my knowledge, the American Polygraph Association raised no objections.

Throughout its research review, which lasted well over a year, the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph invited members of the public to send any information or documents they thought relevant. AntiPolygraph.org did so on several occassions. If the American Polygraph Association did not avail itself of this opportunity, they have no one to blame but themselves.

The polygraph review committee also held a series of eight meetings, four of which were open to the public. To my knowledge, the American Polygraph Association did not send any representative to attend any of these public meetings. By contrast, I traveled to Washington, DC to give a presentation at one meeting, and AntiPolygraph.org co-founder Gino Scalabrini attended two of these public meetings. Our friends Drs. Drew C. Richardson and Alan P. Zelicoff also gave presentations at these public meetings.

Despite the American Polygraph Association's absence, the pro-polygraph view did not go unrepresented. Senior representatives of federal polygraph programs were present at all of the public meetings. David Renzelman, the former Department of Energy polygraph program manager gave a public presentation as did Dr. Andrew Ryan of DoDPI, both of whom were also present at the public meeting when I gave my presentation. In addition, the committee held two closed meetings at which the Department of Energy and CIA polygraph program managers, respectively, were able to discuss polygraph matters without any dissenting voices present. A subcommittee was also given a tour and briefing at DoDPI, which, again, was closed to members of the public.

And finally, the reason the NAS relied on only a small fraction of the polygraph studies conducted to date is simply that the vast majority of such "research" fails to meet the minimum standards of scientific rigor.