Scientist Organizes Resistance To Polygraphs 405
George Maschke writes "Brad Holian, a senior scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is using a blog to organize resistance to plans for random polygraph and drug testing of Lab scientists. Holian writes: 'Polygraphy is an insulting affront to scientists, since a committee of the National Academy of Sciences has declared that, beyond being inadmissible in court, there is no scientific basis for polygraphs. In my opinion, by agreeing to be polygraphed, one thereby seriously jeopardizes his or her claim to being a scientist, which is presumably the principal reason for employment for many scientists at Los Alamos.'"
Polygraphs work--sorta (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Polygraphs ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I have a serious heroin problem, I may get myself into so much debt and other trouble that I wind up being used by some foreign spy group or something (if I worked at Los Alamos of course). Or maybe I don't want my habit getting out and therefore can be blackmailed. That sort of thing. This is similar to how homosexual people have been targetted in prior decades; not because a gay person can't do the work, but because having this secret you really want to keep means you can be blackmailed with it.
Re:Polygraphs ... (Score:2, Insightful)
They are NOT accurate. A friend of mine lied for a large number of questions (stupid stuff he did in college), and he passed with flying colors.
Is he the exception to the rule? Maybe, but I doubt it. I just think the polygraph "works" on psychological level rather than a physiological level, and that anybody that understands this can easily beat the test.
I don't even think that the employers even CARE if the test is accurate. First, it weeds out a lot of the types of people that the employer doesn't want, such as drug users. Many people won't apply for the job if they think they will fail the polygraph. Second, from my understanding, the person giving the polygraph tries to intimidate you, and I imagine a lot of people "crack" and tell the truth when being intimidated while strapped to a machine. So even though the test may not be so accurate, it still gives employers decent results (from their point of view).
I wouldn't be so adverse to these types of exams if they didn't categorize you as a criminal or drug addict because you did something stupid years ago. Instead of asking "Have you ever smoked marijuana?," wouldn't it be more fair (and relevant to the employer) to ask "have you smoked marijuana in the past 5 years?"
People do stupid things growing up; but most people DO grow up. Personally, I think we should judge people on the things they do as adults, not as teenagers or college students.
Re:Polygraphs ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a huge difference between drug use and drug *abuse*. Profile based on behaviour, not based on chemical testing. If someone's a lazy obnoxious git, by all means fire him if he doesn't shape up, regardless of the reason.
This is like the difference between a red-faced drunkard and someone that has a glass of wine at dinner.
-b.
Re:Polygraphs work--sorta (Score:5, Insightful)
"It would be a shame if something were to happen with your kneecaps..."
Re:Bad Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it with Americans and drug tests (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it kind of obvious when someone's personal life is interfering with their professional life?
Is it so hard to take the cue from the rest of the world, where such nonsense is not even considered (with no apparent ill effects)?
Re:Polygraphs ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a drug test is meaningless. I know a significant numbe rof recreational pot and E users to function fine at work. I think a credit check is better. One check and it will tell you the likelyhood of Scientist x selling yoru secrets to the chinese/russians/islamists/EU. People who tend to do these things tend to have financial problems ot start with.
Re:Do you really want a law breaker? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, for gahd's sake, just because you break a few minor laws does *not* mean that you'd be more likely sell out your country to the enemy-of-the-day. By your "slippery slope" logic, anyone who gets caught for speeding should be pre-emptively shot. After all, who's to say when they'll move from speeding to treason?
-b.
Here's a simple question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither can I. It never happened.
TFA is completely correct on polygraphs.
Re:What is it with Americans and drug tests (Score:3, Insightful)
Not always, and, more importantly, not always soon enough.
The point of random drug testing in a facility like Los Almos is to identify the user before he becomes a security risk, before he becomes a danger to himself and others.
Re:Bad Logic (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no scientific basis for polygraphs. Therefore they fail to meet court standards for admission of evidence. And therefore they are not admissable in court. This guy is formulating what is at least partially a legal argument as well as a scientific and political argument and so it is very relevant for him to point out the complete NAS opinion that polygraphs are not admissable in court, in addition to having no scientific basis. The NAS position he cites specifically says "beyond", not "because of". While the author does use established legal standards to support his argument in a rhetorical sense, he is not relying on them as proof of anything scientific.
I don't know where you divined the information that polygraphs fail to meet court standards for admission of evidence for any reason other than their lack of a scientific basis. Specifically, those standards keep polygraphs out of courtrooms because of their high error rate, as one would expect from a technology built on top of a pseudoscience.
As for the rest of your argument, the choice of whether or not to consent to a stupid polygraph is simply not on par with one's freedom of religion.
Re:Richard Feynmann (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe he his written any books about his youth. A non-scientist friend of his wrote
- Surely you are joking, mister Feynmann
- What do you care what other people think
based on conversation with Feynmann, those two books were very popular in college.
Re:How intereresting if they were 100% acccurate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A valid point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not a slippery slope (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad Logic (Score:2, Insightful)
Reread what was said. There is no scientific basis for polygraphs *and* they're not admissible in court. The latter issue is important because when it comes time to actually, you know, justify a firing, pointing at a polygraph as a basis fails completely because it's not admissible. Ie, from just that standpoint it is fundamentally a waste of time.
No. More precisely, if you agree to something that's unscientific, acting as if it *is* scientific, then one seriously jeopardizes their claim of being a scientist. It doesn't mean it's impossible that you're a scientist; perhaps you're carrying out a study, as impartial as you can, to test the hypothesis that a polygraph is a valid test of what it claims to be a test of.
Now you're mixing up things. Religion isn't scientific. Religion is founded on a study or otherwise communion with the supernatural. The supernatural, by definition, is not a repeatable experimental space. So, one is not likely a scientist if they believe religion is scientific. But, one can continue to believe that one's religion is true. It's perfectly acceptable to believe that science might not be capable of explaining all phenomenon. The issue is when you start rejecting the phenomenon that science *can* explain or start rejecting the claims that can be refuted.
I mean, we can't at all be sure, at the minimal, that some of the axioms of science are true (especially those extremely long-term consistency assumptions). Science is both a model and a system. If you can develop a better model and system to explain more things or everything, feel free. But certainly there's nothing illogical about pointing out that one is doing such outside the model and system of science. It doesn't make your model incorrect. It most certainly makes it unscientific. Having said all that, polygraphs sure seem to not be correct.
Re:Not congress, sir (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I don't think it was one of the "emergency" bills, just the yearly defense budget bill for 2002. I'm not sure our habit of having yearly defense budget emergency bills extends further back than 2003 and I'm too lazy to look it up. Still, whether it was or not, as a major defense budget allocation, it was "must-pass" legislation of the sort that often has questionable unrelated riders added- to do questionable stuff like build $200 million bridges to uninhabited parts of Alaska.
Re:Bad Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy's right, by the way. For similar reasons, I've walked off jobs because I refuse to be piss-tested. I don't do drugs, I'm an infrequent drinker, nearest to a chemical vice is drinking too much espresso, but as a matter of principle, it's none of their goddamned business. And I've never gone a day without being employed. The only reason not to stand up to the bastards is cowardice, or the all-American tendency to grovel before any authority, no matter how illegitimate or irrational.