Editing Polygraph (section)

===National Academy of Sciences===
In 2003, the [[National Academy of Sciences]] (NAS) issued a report entitled "The Polygraph and Lie Detection". The NAS found that "overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak", concluding that 57 of the approximately 80 research studies that the [[American Polygraph Association]] relied on to reach their conclusions were significantly flawed.<ref>[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=212 "Conclusions and Recommendations"]. ''The Polygraph and Lie Detection'' (2003), [[National Academies Press]]. p. 212</ref> These studies did show that specific-incident polygraph testing, in a person untrained in counter-measures, could discern the truth at "a level greater than chance, yet short of perfection". However, due to several flaws, the levels of accuracy shown in these studies "are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident testing in the field".<ref>National Research Council (2013); [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=212 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations, p. 212])</ref> By adding a camera, the [[Silent Talker Lie Detector]] attempted to give more data to the evaluator by providing information about microexpressions. However adding the Silent Talker camera did not improve lie detection and was very expensive and cumbersome to include according to an article in the Intercept.<ref name="intercept" />

When polygraphs are used as a screening tool (in [[national security]] matters and for [[Law enforcement agency|law enforcement]] agencies for example) the level of accuracy drops to such a level that "Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in [[List of federal agencies in the United States|federal agencies]]."  The NAS concluded that the polygraph "may have some utility but that there is "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy".<ref name=NatResearchCouncil/>

The NAS conclusions paralleled those of the earlier [[United States Congress]] [[Office of Technology Assessment]] report "Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation".<ref>{{cite web |title= Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation |author= Office of Technology Assessment |date= November 1983 |url=https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ota/ |author-link= Office of Technology Assessment }}</ref>  Similarly,  a report to Congress by the [[Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy]] concluded that "The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions".<ref name=moynihan>[http://www.gpo.gov/congress/commissions/secrecy/pdf/09ps.pdf IV Personnel Security: Protection Through Detection] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612003618/http://www.gpo.gov/congress/commissions/secrecy/pdf/09ps.pdf |date=2011-06-12 }} quoting Ralph M. Carney, ''SSBI Source Yield: An Examination of Sources Contacted During the SSBI'' (Monterey: Defense Personnel Security Research Center, 1996), 6, affirming that in 81% of cases, the derogatory informations were obtained through questionnaire and/or interrogation.</ref>

Despite the NAS finding of a "high rate of false positives," failures to expose individuals such as [[Aldrich Ames]] and [[Larry Wu-Tai Chin]], and other inabilities to show a scientific justification for the use of the polygraph, it continues to be employed.<ref name="intercept">{{cite journal |last1=Randi |first1=James |author-link1=James Randi |title=A Consistently Erroneous Technology |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |date=2017 |volume=41 |issue=5 |pages=16–19 |url=https://www.csicop.org/si/show/a_consistently_erroneous_technology |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180728234040/https://www.csicop.org/si/show/a_consistently_erroneous_technology |archive-date=2018-07-28 |access-date=28 July 2018}}</ref>