http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8KI3EU00.html

Energy Dept. Scales Back Polygraph Tests

- - - - - - - - - - - -


By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer

October 04,2006 | WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is ending required polygraph tests for thousands of workers at its nuclear weapons facilities, including most scientists at the government's national research labs.

The department no longer will require polygraph tests as part of a general screening of new applicants, or automatically for employees in areas of high security. Tests will be required for narrow purposes where there is specific cause, the department said.

Applicants still will undergo broad security reviews, as will current workers on a periodic basis. But, with narrow exceptions, these workers will no longer automatically be subject to a lie detector test, department officials said.

The new requirements, to go into effect Oct. 30, "will significantly reduce the number of individuals who will undergo polygraph examinations," the department said in a summary printed in the Federal Register.


 
The widespread use of polygraphs at federal nuclear weapons labs and elsewhere within the Energy Department has been the subject of intense resentment, especially among scientists at the national laboratories.

Critics of the polygraph program have argued that it has kept good scientists from working at federal labs, such as Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, and caused others to quit.

There are an estimated 20,000 high-risk security positions at the Energy Department and among its contractors that under the old rules have been routinely subject to polygraphs, according to the department.



Officials could not provide numbers Wednesday on how many workers will still be subject to polygraphs under the new criteria.

But the new rules say mandatory polygraphs would be limited to workers whose jobs require them to work with or in other agencies that require polygraphs; those where there is "a specific indication" of a clandestine relationship with a foreign country, organization or terrorist group; and those where a test is ordered in response to a specific incident of concern.

The department said a polygraph may also be administered as part of random counterintelligence evaluations.

"This is a significant retreat from the (more widespread) use of the polygraph," said Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientist.

"DOE deserves credit for responding to the scientific critique and employee concerns" about the uncertainties surrounding polygraph tests, Aftergood said, adding that's not been the case at some other government agencies including the FBI and intelligence community.

In fact, earlier this week, the FBI and U.S. Secret Service won a legal victory when a federal judge ruled those two agencies could continue to use polygraphs for across-the-board screening of prospective employees.

The Energy Department rejected a call by representatives of some DOE scientists and others to stop using polygraph tests altogether. Critics of the technology long have argued that such tests are not reliable and can ruin a person's career if erroneously interpreted by technicians.

The call for greater polygraph use was enflamed by the alleged espionage scandal surrounding Los Alamos computer scientist Wen Ho Lee. Lee, who was under investigation for years, was never charged with espionage and eventually was largely exonerated.

Responding to the Lee case and a string of unrelated security lapses, Congress in 1999 directed the department to use polygraphs as a broad screening tool for high-security workers including scientists at the national labs. That brought outrage from some weapons lab workers, who argued that polygraphs were not needed to assure security and were hurting morale.

In 2002, a National Academy of Sciences study said that polygraphs should not be used as the sole reason for judging an applicant for employment. The study said it should be only used in conjunction with a broader review.

As a result, Congress directed the Energy Department to revamp its policy on polygraph use and take into account the NAS findings, resulting in the revised regulations that will go into effect at the end of this month.

Eos,

Yes, it's a little hard to dupe the researchers and scientists. Now, if only applicants of the Intel agencies who use the polygraph would become educated and refuse to submit to it, those agencies too, would be forced to abandon the ridiculous requirement.

Fair Chance,

You write:
Quote:

When last I knew, the FBI Laboratory had in its employ over 1000 individuals.  These agent examiners, professional civilian scientists, technicians, and others plus other employees from various technical groups (e.g., engineering, etc) within the FBI can make a difference if they wake up and demonstrate the courage to tell the emperor that he has no clothes.  The generation of agent examiners that I spent a career working with now runs the FBI Laboratory.  Although the Bureau has implicitly admitted that polygraphy (in particular, polygraph screening) has nothing to do with science and has moved it from the Laboratory Division to another HQ division, I maintain that serious minds and credible scientific backgrounds can still make a difference.  Come on guys and gals---wake up as have your colleagues in the DOE National Labs and help to make for a more rational workplace existence for yourselves, your colleagues, and your future colleagues (applicants).

TrueScientist,

I have to ask what was the end result after the polys ? Did you continue to work without any repercussions ?
Or did they just white wash the failures in order to keep you working ? And not lose your talent. How you answer will say volumes on the polygraph program where you work. Welcome to the board and another talented mind is always welcome. 

Regards ....

TrueScientist,

It would be great to have your story, and have it added to the other volumes of testimonials that reside here on the abuses of the polygraph, and those that have been affected by the abuse. Obviously sanitize it and post it. Always good to have this documented for posterity.

Regards ...

uiop wrote on Oct 25^th, 2006 at 4:48am:


uiop,

Unless you post a link to the article or at least copy and paste the real article, then this is all hearsay and non-provable, so if you have a point to make, post the real data. Next time add the evidence to support your statements. No links or Data = BS.  Always support your position.

Regards ....

The article doesn't state that the man arrested on drug charges is a DOE scientist. Nor does it state that the woman believed to be the source of the information is a DOE scientist. She is instead described merely as "a contract employee at Los Alamos National Laboratory."

Based on the available information, it seems premature to make any connection between this case and polygraph policy.