Response to “Looking for the Lie” by Robin Marantz Henig

This article focuses on innovation in lie detection technology which is of particular interest to the audience not because of the scientific research, but the social implications. A world where there is no uncertainty in human interaction borders on science fiction and I believe is interesting to the reader more for its entertainment value than its practicality. As the article progresses, it is clear that the current research being conducted has weak, if any scientific footing. Researchers have difficulty defining a lie in biological terms let alone detecting one. Perhaps the researchers, like the audience are too caught up in the romantic notion of an honest society to ask the right questions before they pursue an answer. The author points out applications in criminal justice but fails to address the fact that, at least in the research he reported, tests were not conducted on criminals. I am far from a sociologist or psychiatrist but it seems to me that a criminal mind may be much different than that of the average tax paying citizen. I am aware that otherwise good people commit crimes of passion, necessity, or desperation everyday but in terms of serious criminal charges like murder or even terrorism I fail to see the connection between average Joe and murdering Moe. This may be the underlying reality that concerns the audience. Imprisonment or execution based on science that most people don’t understand is a weighty notion. The author goes on to discuss what researchers believe to be biological signatures of the intention to lie. This concept is even heavier. Could we prosecute or even execute someone before they even commit a crime? Will scientists reach the conclusion that humans do not possess free will and are slaves to their chemical impulses? These are the fundamental questions provoked by the ultimate goal of research in deception detection and are understandably worrisome to the audience. Other concerns related to lie detection are questions of right to privacy. As the author points out, one’s mind is often their last refuge. If one can’t find sanctuary in one’s own mind what kind of chaos will result? If we aren’t entitled to the privacy of our own thoughts then what are we entitled to? Nothing. Similar issues of privacy dominate the national discourse related to the Patriot Act. Americans especially are reluctant and in many cases resistant to sacrifice their own rights to privacy for what is advertised as a greater national good. Even after 200 years they have not lost sight of one of the foundations of out nation and it seems to me will resist any technology that threatens their right to privacy, no matter how many criminals are promised to be punished. This article updates the reader on interesting research and outlines the related applications and implications but does so in a cautionary tone. The author related the scientists in search of lie detection technology with those that developed the atomic bomb. These scientists were so engulfed with their quest to find an answer they failed to look ahead and realize that scientific progress isn’t always social progress.