On 23 July 2001, the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council polygraph committee held its fourth meeting (which was its 3rd public meeting). A udio recordings of that meeting are now available on the NAS website in RealPlayer format. The following list provides a link to each audio file in the series, along with a brief (and by no means exhaustive) description of the contents:

File 1: Committee chairman Stephen Fienberg opens meeting. Introductions. Professor Charles R. Honts, Boise State University begins presentation on polygraphy.

File 2: Professor Honts continues, speaking about polygraph countermeasures. States that polygraphers cannot detect polygraph countermeasures such as those available on AntiPolygraph.org. Mentions a pending laboratory study in which [url]The Lie Behind the Lie Detector[/url] will be used to train countermeasure subjects. Harsh criticism of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI). Professor William G. Iacono, Univesity of Minnesota, begins presentation; discusses a hypothetical "Test for Academic Dishonesty."

File 3: Professor Iacono continues.

File 4: Professor Iacono continues, concludes. Professor Emanuel Donchin of the University of Illinois begins remarks on brain-related technologies.

File 5: Professor Donchin continues. John Harris of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory begins remarks on computerized scoring of polygraph data.

File 6: John Harris continues.

File 7: Dr. Sheila S. Reed, the developer of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage, begins her remarks about 2/3 into this file.

File 8: Dr. Reed continues.

File 9: Discussion. Professor Honts talks about polygraph screening. Dr. Andrew Ryan, chief of the DoDPI research division, speaks on the nature of scientific progress, in what seems to be a plea for the committee's indulgence of polygraphy. David Renzelman, Department of Energy (DOE) polygraph program chief, gives short talk, mentioning that he forbids the use of computerized scoring with DOE polygraph exams.

Some good information here.  George didn't you testify before the committee?  Is that available anywhere?  Glad to see the discussion regarding the algorithims and computerized scoring.  I can't recall anything I've read that supports their accuracy.  Thats probably why most federal agencies don't use them.  I'd be careful with the Stoetling link though.  While they are bashing the APL algorithim, they are promoting their own version of the algorithim, without providing any of the research regarding its reliability.