On 17 Feb 2004, Jodi Gabert wrote: > Good Morning All, > > The BBC reports today that a technique known as "Brain Fingerprinting" > is going to be allowed in a death penalty case in Oklahoma. The > inventor, a Dr. Farwell, says he has had some tests report 100% > reliability in determining whether or not someone is telling the truth > or not. I'd like to give my students the facts on this. Anyone have > background on Dr. Farwell and/or the technique? Thanks much, >
This is really disturbing news. This technique is outrageous neuroquackery and it staggers me that it's actually going to be allowed as evidence at any trial, let alone one involving the death penalty. I wouldn't allow it to contest a parking ticket. It raises junk science to Olympian heights. The claim is that, just like the now discredited polygraph test, brain wave responses can be used to determine truth and falsehood. Unfortunately, I haven't yet come across any good published critique of the method, although I haven't looked for a few years. But I did write about it (with others) on TIPS back at the end of 2000 when a admiring report about it appeared on 60 Minutes (shame on them!). Here's a version of what I said, somewhat updated. Their website (http://brainwavescience.com/) has all the usual signs of quackery: grandiose claims, purported association with Harvard University, commercial interest. Out of the hundreds of allegedly validating studies they claimed during the 60 Minutes programme, I found _one_ on their website. It was published in the impressively-named _Journal of Forensic Science_ (but I wouldn't mind if someone investigated its status in the field) and is available at their website at http://brainwavescience.com/JourForensicScience.php It's a long, meandering article, with much neurobabble. If you read far enough, you find out that it's a laboratory simulation study involving just 6 subjects, 3 (count 'em) experimentals and 3 controls. I don't have time to do more than have a quick look at it again. But the word "blind" as in "assessment of brain wave results was done blindly, without knowledge of the subject from which it was obtained ", does NOT appear there (forgive the shouting, but I don't want that statement misread). Oh yes, they "replaced" one subject who apparently didn't understand the instructions. There's far too much babble for me to grasp exactly what was going on (something which they undoubtedly count on) but here's what they claimed themselves: "The MERMER System...correctly classified all six subjects. All threee subjects who were tested on their own biographical data were correctly classifed as information present...all three subjects who were not knowldegeable were also correctly classified as information absent". And this seems to be the sole published basis for their grandiose claims. It's disturbing that the public, journalists, and the courts especially, seem to be buying it without a hint of criticism. I sure hope the prosecution digs up some people who can tell the jury not to believe this nonsense. Stephen ___________________________________________________ Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm _______________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
