8 Volume 31, I s sue 1 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER

N E W S A N D C O M M E N T

KENDRICK FRAZIER

After years of controversy, ranging fromcomplaints from national labs’ scientists(SI, July/August 2001) to a criticalNational Academy of Sciences report (SIJanuary/February 2003), the U.S. De-partment of Energy is ending requiredpolygraph tests for thousands of workersat its nuclear weapons facilities, includingmost scientists at the three nationalweapons labs, Los Alamos, LawrenceLivermore, and Sandia.

In new requirements that went intoeffect October 30, 2006, DOE will nolonger require polygraph tests as part ofa general screening of new applicants, orautomatically for employees in areas ofhigh security. Tests will still be requiredfor narrow purposes where there is spe-cific cause.

The new requirements enact an earlierpreliminary decision and recommendationto scale back polygraph testing reported toa Senate committee in September 2003(SI, November/December 2003).

Current workers will still undergobroad security reviews on a periodic basis,as will new applicants. But, with narrowexceptions, the Associated Press reportedin early October 2006, these workers willno longer be subject a “lie detector” test.

Up to 20,000 workers were at least the-oretically subject to polygraph tests underthe old program, which went into effect in1999. Government officials gave no num-bers for those who will be subject to poly-graphs under the new criteria but say theiruse would be limited to workers whosejobs require them to work with or in otheragencies that require polygraphs; thosewhere there is “a specific indication” of aclandestine relationship with a foreigncountry, organization, or terrorist group;and those where a test is ordered inresponse to a specific incident or concern.DOE said a polygraph exam may also beadministered as part of random counter-intelligence 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 ofAmerican Scientists. “DOE deserves creditfor responding to the scientific critique andemployee concerns” about the uncertaintiessurrounding polygraph tests, he said.

Employees complained that the tests, dueto the prevalence of false positives, couldimproperly endanger their careers. TheNational Academy of Sciences study, issuedin October 8, 2002, and chaired by CarnegieMellon professor Stephen E. Fienberg, saidthe polygraph results are too inaccurate to beused for general screening of employees. Itsaid the tests had “weak scientific underpin-nings . . . belief in its accuracy goes beyondwhat the evidence suggests.”

Legislation sponsored by Sen. JeffBingaman, D-New Mexico, then chair-man of the Energy and NaturalResources Committee, and Sen. PeteDomenici, R-New Mexico, requiredDOE to overhaul its polygraph programbased on the findings of the NAS report.

Kendrick Frazier is editor of the SKEPTICAL

INQUIRER.

Energy Department Will End Most Polygraph Testing

SI J-F 2007 pgs 11/13/06 11:26 AM Page 8

N E W S A N D C O M M E N T

Within the framework of the 2006CFI/Amherst/CFI/Moscow InternationalSummer School (held in Novosibirsk,Siberia), a roundtable discussion was heldon Humanism, Science, and False Sciencein Russia on July 20. The major speaker,Edward Kruglyakov, Chair of theCommittee against Antiscience of theRussian Academy of Sciences (see Krugly-akov, Edward, “Why Is PseudoscienceDangerous?” SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, July/August 2002), presented a report on“Whether Russia Will Be Able to Avoidthe New Rasputin Times.”

He reviewed the most scandalous casesin the field of charlatanism in today’sRussia. Kruglyakov reminded listenersthat the extremely aggressive charlatanGrigori Grabovoi was finally arrested.Nevertheless, for a long time, Grabovoihad a mysterious immunity and was,according to his claims (such as thosemade in an interview on Radio EchoMoscow, September, 28, 2005), responsi-ble for the security of President Putin’s air-craft and for the aircraft of other presi-dents of the Commonwealth of theIndependent States, “and he claimed todo it with the help of mental control.”

His cynical activity was marked by hispromise to resurrect more then 150 chil-dren, killed during a terrorist act in thetown of Beslan (in the North Caucasus),for about $1,300. Last summer, on thetelevision talk show, Let’s Talk, he pro-claimed himself the New Savior.

Kruglyakov said it has now becomean unfortunate trend for top Russianbureaucrats to get scientific degrees.Some underpaid scholars are ready tomake some extra money, and they dothe dissertations for the politicians ofvarious levels of government. The qual-ity of such dissertations is very poor.Nevertheless, because of the corruptionand connections of the clients, getting a

PhD poses no problem. The shamefulresults of this practice occur within thehighest levels of government.

As an example, Kruglyakov analyzedthe statement of the Vice Secretary ofthe Security Council of the RussianFederation, N. Spasskii, from his paper,“Preparing for G-8,” which was pub-lished in the official governmental news-paper, Rossiiskaya Gazeta (April 24,2006). In this paper, Spasskii proposesto revise some basic positions on the eveof the summit in St. Petersburg in July2006. Among others subjects, thisimportant official writes about the com-ing breakthroughs in energy sources(conducted thermonuclear synthesis,hydrogen, and vacuum energy.)

This statement, according to Krugly-akov, reveals the fact that this official hasadvisers who are either ignorant or char-latans. Until now, only yellow-pressjournalists would propose getting“energy from a vacuum.” Never beforehave such statements been made on thestate level, Kruglyakov said. Accordingto him, hydrogen energy can solve rela-tively local problems, but it is not ableto solve the problem of the world short-age of energy and cannot be the basis forthe energy industry. As for thermo-nuclear synthesis (controlled fusion), itis a promising source of energy indeed.Nevertheless, we cannot expect this kindof energy to be a breakthrough technol-ogy in the near future.

As a participant in this round table, Imay add only that these and many othersuch cases drastically undermine theimage of Russia as a world energy sup-plier, as well as Putin’s picture of Russiaas an energy superpower.

—Valerii Kuvakin

Valerii Kuvakin is the chairman of theCenter for Inquiry/Moscow.

Moscow RoundtableDiscusses False Science

in Russia

If, like many educators, you are notquite sure what to do in your ownwork about the recent definition of

planet by the International Astro-nomical Union, you may want to readwhat fourteen experts on planetary sci-ence and education think.

A roundtable in the online journalAstronomy Education Review (AER)looks at the science, politics, and edu-cational implications of the contro-versy. It also includes a historical time-line and a guide to educationalresources concerning the definition ofa planet.

See it at the Web site http://aer.noao.edu—where it begins the tenthissue of the journal. When you go tothe AER site, you can find the fullninth issue by clicking on “backissues” and then on “vol. 5, no. 1.”

AER actively solicits interestingpapers and articles on all aspects ofspace science education and outreach.The site gets over 200,000 hits permonth from ninety-one countries.

Pluto/PlanetRoundtable Now Online

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER January / February 2007 9

SI J-F 2007 pgs 11/13/06 11:26 AM Page 9

N E W S A N D C O M M E N T

UCS ReleasesScience Idol

CalendarThe Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS), in response to the many ways inwhich “government science is being cen-sored, manipulated, and distorted on anunprecedented scale,” conducted Sci-ence Idol: The Scientific IntegrityEditorial Cartoon Contest.

More than four hundred entries werereceived in response to the organization’scall for submissions of cartoons humor-ously depicting some aspect of the unfor-tunate trend. The field was winnowed byUCS to the twelve finalists whose workappears in the calendar, with the help ofeditorial cartoonists Tony Auth (of ThePhiladelphia Inquirer) and Clay Bennett(of The Christian Science Monitor), BobMankoff (the cartoon editor for The NewYorker), and Hilary Price (the creator ofthe daily comic strip Rhymes withOrange). Then, the final winner wasselected from the remaining field by a vote taken among UCS members and supporters.

James MacLeod, of Evansville,Indiana, submitted the work that waschosen as the top entry. Besides havinghis cartoon appear in the 2007 ScientificIntegrity Calendar and the UCS maga-zine, Catalyst, MacLeod will receive a$500 cash prize, an autographed copy ofDude: The Big Book of Zonker, by GaryTrudeau, a copy of the calendar auto-graphed by the four celebrity judges,and fifty copies to distribute to hisfriends and family; he will also havelunch with Bob Mankoff. The othereleven finalists will each receive a signedcopy of the calendar. (MacLeod’s car-toon appears above.)

Regarding the purpose of the contestand the calendar that it produced,Michael Halpern, Outreach Coordi-nator for the UCS Scientific IntegrityProgram, said, “While editorial cartoonscan be funny, political interference inscience is not. The calendar communicates

the impact of political interference onour health, safety, and environment in avery accessible way. And as a bonus, thecalendar is packed with interesting datesin science history.

“We hope that scientists and non-scientists alike will use the calendarfirst for a laugh—for the cartoons arequite funny—but also as an educa-tional tool to teach their friends andfamily about the importance of restor-

ing scientific integrity to federal pol-icy making.”

The calendar is available from UCS;go to www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/science_idol/ and click on “2007 sci-entific integrity calendar” for more infor-mation.

—David Park Musella

David Park Musella is an editorial assis-tant with the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. !

James MacLeod/UCS

Michigan SupportsEvolution, Rejects ID for

Science Classes

Add Michigan to the list of states that have given intelligent designthe bum’s rush. Michigan’s state Board of Education on October10, 2006, approved public school curriculum guidelines that

support the teaching of evolution in public schools, but not intelligentdesign. Intelligent design doesn’t belong in the science class, according tothe guidelines unanimously adopted. “The intent of the board needs tobe very clear,” said board member John Austin. “Evolution is not understress. It is not untested science.”

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER January / February 2007 11

SI J-F 2007 pgs 11/13/06 11:27 AM Page 11