Slashdot Mirror
Brain Scans to Identify Liars?
dotc writes "After a bunch of sci-fi stories and rumors, now it looks like the future has become a reality -- a reliable, unbiased test using functional MRI brain scan to detect lying. The article author details a first-person account of undergoing the MRI 'deception task'. And the test is available now - use it to prove your innocence." From the article: "Laken said he's aiming to offer the fMRI service for use in situations like libel, slander and fraud where it's one person's word against another, and perhaps in employee screening by government agencies. Attorneys suggest it would be more useful in civil than most criminal cases, he said."
But advocates for fMRI say it has the potential to be more accurate, because it zeros in on the source of lying, the brain, rather than using indirect measures
This is completely bogus. Look, if one can lie (and is good at it), it is going to be much more difficult to figure out whether they are telling the truth or not. To someone who knows what they are doing, polygraphs can be fooled and I would suspect that interpretation of fMRIs can also be confused by someone who "knows" how to lie. The trick is to avoid delivering "tells" that are physiologic manifestations of deception. The truth is that there is no foundation in physiology that mandates that one has to reveal anything when stating something that is not in fact, the truth. A good liar will be able to deceive the device and more importantly, the interpreter of the device because they are able to LIVE the lie.
Now, I am not saying that all means of determining lies by technology are doomed to fail. Rather, I believe that relying on any one (particularly trendy) method for determining lies will work. And the use of fMRI is simply a massively expensive and trendy polygraph, particularly because there are so many differences in cortical anatomy and regional differences between individuals. I would be much more comfortable with a derivative of cortical function such as the p300 cortical recognition waveform used as part of a more complete determination of truth using interview, cross checking of facts, polygraph and p300. Perhaps if the fMRI proves accurate to some degree, it could be integrated, but it should not be used exclusively.
And yes, I do know a little something about neurophysiologic monitoring as I teach neurophysiology labs to medical students.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"It's not a lie, if you believe it."
What's the MRI gonna tell you then?
RSS still hasn't updated though.
How soon before the FBI and other agencies use biofeedback or other techniques to train their agents to defeat this?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Attorneys suggest it would be more useful in civil than most criminal cases, he said.
I suggest it would be most useful on attorneys themselves.
SCULLY: Now we're going to run a few tests. This is a simple lie detector. I'll ask you a few yes or no questions, and you just answer truthfully. Do you understand?
HOMER: Yes! (*The machine blows up*)
serenity now!
...and in Britain....
Authorities are discussing how to deploy lie-sensing devices on street corners. They say this will help protect the general public against crimes, and will augment the feature recognition systems already in place.
American Democrats are poised to follow the lead of their socialist compatriots.
More at 11:00.
Lie detectors have always been more of a psychological test than an actual method of detecting lies. That's why they're not admissible in court, nor can an employer force you to take one. Now suddenly they can read your brain patterns (which they don't actually understand, just generalize) and tell if you're lying?
I don't buy it. I'll believe that they have a more accurate method of telling when you experience psychological stress from lying, but the actual act of lying is such an indistinct thing that I can't believe that you have a portion of your brain that says "turn this on when you lie".
The fact that they want to make this admissable in a court of law is just plain scary.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This won't work for those who have mental issues and actually believe they are telling the truth. When they scan your brain all the 'sectors' will still show up as true. However, this would still be useful after it has undergone some extended testing to ensure accuracy.
as detecting truth.
What's more, they admit it doesn't actually detect lies, because people beat it; and that's under idealized lab conditions.
Do not go directly to jail.
KFG
...or am I reading the enquirer? Come on people. "Scam artist claims to use new technology to create infaliable lie detector" isn't news!!!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Guess I better break out the tin foil.
The for profit lab reports the test is accurate 90 percent of the time. Even after an independent study is performed, I'm still not sure I'd trust the accuracy. Controlled tests (where subjects are directed to steal an object) are very different than real world scenarios. Regardless, I suspect that, like polygraph tests, courts will eventually rule the outcome of such a procedure is not admissable evidence.
An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
Attorneys suggest it would be more useful in civil than most criminal cases, he said.
Does this mean that lawyers will be required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help them God? Should make Court TV more interesting.
Since they're a domestic agency. CIA and NSA? More likely.
This is cool that it may present better accuracy than traditional polygraph tests, but the whole concept of lie-detection remains flawed. If the subject truly believes the response to a question regardless of it's validity, there's much you can do in the way of physical monitoring.
Oh well, there's no such thing as a cheat-proof test.
This sig rocks the casbah.
Take off your ear rings and rip out your pace makers!
Get dizzy while you're proving your innocence!
It's not a lie, if you beleive it.
Somebody tell Maury Povich about this! There are tons of jilted men and women out there just waiting to find out if their spouses cheated on them, and with an MRI lie detector, Maury can find out for sure. Now that's quality television!
RSS takes like half an hour to update
FTA,
>His outfit, No Lie MRI Inc., will serve government agencies
>and "anybody that wants to demonstrate that they're telling
>the truth," he said.
I bet it won't be long until an employer can insist that recruits go through this scanner before getting employed. Not to worry, my geek-'r'-us-certified, size-XL tinfoil hat will protect me.
Authorities, including the government, are rarely interested in truth. Facts, sometimes. Accuracy and methodology are not the main issues here - just the name "lie detector", just the concept in the body of a contraption is power. It will never go away.
Foucault spoke of this in Discipline and Punish, where just the placing of a subject under observation was a form of power parading as science.
In normal people, you will see different patterns of brain activity between telling the truth and telling a lie. However, if the person can convince herself that the lie is true, then this test will not work.
It would be interesting to do a study of gender differences in lying. Is there a biological/physiological basis for the saying: "Boys lie, girls prevaricate" ?
free ipods
This sounds like a setup to a Bush joke.
Flipping a coin would be a more accurate lie-detector test that traditional polygraphs.
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN03/wn041803.html
I know about the research in using an MRI's to see what someone is thinking and it's far from 100% this guy is full of it and what he's trying to do is extremely dangerous. This what I call a classic example of misuse of technology this guy should have his research license revoked for promoting junk like that.
A polygraph measures certain physiological signs of anxiety (galvanic skin conductance, pulse rate, respiration rate, dilation of pupils, and other signs of autonomic nervous system arousal). This fMRI looks for patterns of brain activity. The idea is that it takes certain areas of the brain more work (i.e., increased bloodflow) to inhibit the truthtelling response and create a lie. This does not have to do with autonomic nervous system activation.
Perhaps the best way to "beat" this machine would be to have a fuzzy recollection of all events so that it would take approximately equal thought to remember the truth or to tell a lie and the subject would not even be aware of the accuracy of what he or she is saying. Another way, maybe, would be to have a story already made so that it would take less work to recall this fabrication than to generate one on the spot.
The questions are asked twice, so it's obviously important to remain consistent, too.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
People manage to get away with lies in several ways. One is that they mask the physiological signs and body language that go along with lies' fMRI potentially can cut through that deception.
But another way is that they basically convince themselves that a false statement is actually true in some sense; fMRI probably cannot detect such lies.
For example, Clinton may have convinced himself that his statement "I have never had sexual relations with that woman." was not a lie because he in his mind legitimately restricted the meaning of "sexual relations" to a particular kind of activity.
Conversely, there may be people who habitually doubt the truth of any statement (for example, scientists), so they may activate the same brain areas as liars even when forced to make such a simple statement as "I had lunch a week ago at Burger King". After all, was that exactly a week ago or the week before this one? Is that on East Coast time or California time?
fMRI is likely to be a little bit more reliable than physiological indicators of lying, but probably not a whole lot. Whatever it is, it needs to be tested and validated very carefully. And there is one thing I'm sure of: Laken is not the guy to do it, and this sort of technology ought to be researched for decades before being put to use in a legal context. But, as a start, perhaps Laken could be put into the machine and answer questions like "do you believe that this system is 100% reliable" and "are you being scrupulously honest with the money of your investors" and "are you scrupulously honest on your taxes".
. . .just the placing of a subject under observation was a form of power parading as science.
Which is how the polygraph "works." It's just a dowsing device, but useful for interrogations, in a very limited sense, to the extent that the subject believes in the power.
It's basically a "civilized" form of waterboarding.
Speaking of methodology, the test described in the article was not only not done double blind, it wasn't even done blind and there was no control. Everyone involved knew the subject had stolen something a priori, and everyone, including the subject, knew that everyone knew.
If I had been a subject I might well have been inclined to "beat" the system buy fucking with what everyone knew, i.e,, not following directions and taking neither the ring or the watch.
KFG
If the subject truly believes the response to a question regardless of it's validity, there's much you can do in the way of physical monitoring.
If the subject is telling you what they believe to be true, then they aren't lying. They may be incorrect, but that's not the same thing. This device is useful for detecting when someone is knowingly giving untrue responses. Seems to me it would be highly useful. I'd like to see the Enron execs hooked up to this thing for a little Q&A.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
One's head has remain be still while answering questions, as slight movements can throw off the readings. This includes moving lips. Makes things a bit more difficult, right? Maybe a button to push for yes, and another for no. this would have problems as well as one could just push buttons at random to invalidate the test, or repeatedly hit "no" for the whole thing. And do you think I would stay still while in the little tube? I will answer that for you:
not "no"
not "heck no"
not "heck freaking no"
but "ehh ehh"
Beware the fury of a patient man
- John Dryden
The question has always been why people in an *investigative* profession (e.g., police, law), where the ultimate result should be facts, concern themselves so much with the veracity of testimony. We would be better served, I think, with less testimony, and more facts.
The article indicated that the technique successfully detected 28 out of 31 lies. Given that the lies were not rehearsed, were not coming from actual suspects, and were from volunteers sufficiently low in claustrophobia to volunteer, that isn't very impressive. I suspect that there are detectives who are at least that good, and I'm not willing to send anyone to prison on their hunches alone either. Come back to me when you've done 10,000 or so in a double-blind test.
I read This Book a few years ago. The premise was: what if a 100% accurate lie detector was invented? Maybe we're getting closer...
Bigtime Consulting - "We're the best because we cost the most"
Other people have commented on how this is bogus, but I want to offer an additional perspective. You absolutely cannot detect when someone is lying with absolute certainty and faith in such a technology is misguided. Which brings me to the point. Consider this example: people will tell you they know for a fact that a god or other divine figure is real and constitutes a genuine presence in their lives. Yet of all the people who say this, how many of them could prove it? How many have actually had an experience where they have spoken with some otherworldy being? (The answer is, of course, none.) But these same people have been conditioned to believe that what they are saying is the truth and nothing but the truth. They are absolutely convinced. So let me (attempt) to put this in general terms.
A lie is a false statement due largely to the context and circumstances—not simply physical factors within the entity which may be lying. For lie detection to be absolutely effective, it must take into consideration factors which are not measured when an individual is measured. That is, to determine if someone is lying, you have to determine if there are factors which might cause the person believes the lie is true.
I suppose we can make it more difficult, but people are trained to overcome polygraphs and VSA. I am sure people can be trained to believe a lie prior to a given test in order to pass as the test gets more sophisticated.
Join Tor today!
I believe that this could be an important step forward. I'm sure some of you have read The Truth Machine. Something of this sort coming to reality is both exciting and scary. Exciting because it would allow the innocent to be proven so, and the truly guilty (You know where the lawyer can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even though we all know that they're likely guilty) taken down. The scary thing is what about my little white lies that we all tell? My future wife asks, "Honey, what do you think of this?" You think it's hideous but you don't want to hurt her feelings...Pop quiz hot shot, what do you say? WHAT DO YOU SAY?
The technology assumes that there is a brain to be scanned. It's going to be pretty useless in determining which political cannidate is lying.
I'd like to point to: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1213245. htm
It's an article talking about how easy it is to implant memories that never existed into peoples minds. In fact, not only do people end up remembering things they've never seen, but they also end up adding additional information to the stories. It's a bit scary actually, but it's a good thought on how one might "break" the system.
Quoting the article:
"It's one thing when implanting false memories is a laboratory experiment, but it's quite another when the accused wrongly end up in jail..."
I've never told a lie in my life!! That will never work!
When we will see these on airports and near kids? It would be great against terrorists and childmolesters. I mean; why could you opose to this? If you have nothing to hide, there is no need to lie.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Now, to stop this nonsense about the public not trusting the government, we can just put every politician and public servant who makes a decision we disagree with under this test.
/. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
$50 hourly professional interrogator when you have about 20 questions to ask... sounds like a definate "No" from cost effective minded Congress...
Well, the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination, so I think that that would get Enron execs off the hook, since I think they are under charges for criminal behavior. I guess that's why the summary said that attorneys said this would be more useful for civil cases -- the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination. However, you may not get that protection in civil suits.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
And I'll be happy to submit to a scan, just as soon as all the Politicians, Lawyers, Police, and Military leaders submit to a brain scan first!!!.
And... the bad "eggs" have all been "culled" from government.
Only then will I feel comfortable submitting to their brain scan, otherwise they can all pound sand.
Anyone remember the time when you were considered innocent until proven guilty?
George: I can't teach you how to lie. It's like asking Pavarotti teach me to sing like you. Remember: It's not a lie...if you believe it.
Damages your brain the problem is potential energy in the MRI scannings whom it repeats!
Kim Su-yeong
Check out this book, titled "The Truth Machine" by James Halperin. It is a future-history based around the developement and use of just such a machine. I has been on several "must-read" lists for college students.
I remember seeing something like this posted before.
At least now I know that George Bush will have an excuse giving him plausible deinability. He really believes his lies are the truth.
Of course, they will still have to restrict use of such a machine during a presidential press conference lest the important national security secret be uncovered that if it were used in such a presidential press conference it would reveal the shocking truth of virtually no brain activity at all.
We can settle this once and for all. Let's get the president to the nearest hospital.
Thank you. I'm here til Tuesday.
I ou you i ie oe oe.
I think you've missed the distinction between a lie and a falsehood. Those people are telling you the truth: they really do "know for a fact" (i.e. they are 100% sure) that God exists. Whether God actually exists or not is beside the point -- they are honestly divulging their sincere beliefs to you. Now if the person was secretly an atheist, and was nevertheless telling you that God exists, that would be a lie, and would (presumably) be detected by the machine.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
.... what exactly makes everyone think that we should want to know for SURE that someone is telling the truth or not?
People have a right to their personal privacy - in my mind this should include privacy of thought.
Making a technology like required by our society (in the same way that drug tests are required today for employment most everywhere) for various things is distasteful and has dangerous implications for society at large (if it ever becomes cheap enough).
Well, if 100% detection of lies will exist, and any citizen is forced to take the test, in any case, then this will create the precedent that voters can demand that all of their "employees", all politicians, including presidents, prime ministers should be tested on a continous bases.
I can't wait when politicians in the US Congress, Senate, in parliaments all over the world will be checked against lying to the public - real time.
Antisocial Personality Disorder is a disorder which is characterized by a disregard for the rights and feelings of others. It was formally known as "Dysocial Personality Disorder," "Sociopathy," and "Psychopathy." A person with this disorder is often called, a "Psychopath." This however is not the proper term because it's meaning has been changed, and it's actually biased language; it is a label, although "Antisocial Personality Disorder" (ASPD) is a label in itself. It's just considered unethical to call someone a name.
ASPD is named this way because it gives emphasis on the social part of the disorder. However, it is misleading. Most people understand that "antisocial" means to be socially distant, sulking, or whatever. What it really means is "socially distructive." It is very true that those with ASPD disrupt the lives of those around them. Those with ASPD are often highly charming.
Characteristics of ASPD include callious, charming, grandious (huge ego), high sense of entitlement, impulsiveness, unreasonable life goals or failure to plan ahead, and others. Check out a wiki on this disorder.
In my research, I've found studies that demonstrate a lack of activity in the prefrontal cortex of the brains of those with ASPD. One study shows 11% less prefrontal grey matter in the brains of those with the disorder compared to control groups (sorry I couldn't link the full text).
The prefrontal cortex is at the front of the brain and is responsible for higher thinking.
Another study is of a boy who was playing Russian Roulette. The boy got the bullet. He was said to have a future diagnosis of ASPD (he was too young for the diagnosis at the time). The surgery removed parts of his prefrontal cortex. No change in his personality, or minimal change, was reported by those who knew him.
Studies on rats show the importance of the prefrontal cortex in the characteristics of ASPD above. Rats with legions cut into their brains tended to be more impulsive. Other studies show a lack of self control, that is, inhibition of an action in a go/no-go task, was weaker in patients with ASPD. (I couldn't find these studies on the Internet, but they may be found in scholarly journels, however, it's been time since I've done this research, and I don't feel like getting up to search them) This shows a stronger link to the prefrontal cortex and these characteristics stated above.
This is important to know since a lot of these people will find themselves charged with crimes. Ted Bundy had this disorder, and so did most serial killers (I do not know if all of them had the disorder). When these people are assessed using the fMRI scan to see if they know more than they should, there might be a problem with their damaged prefrontal cortex. That is, this brain damage can interfer with lie-detection.
What happens when you honestly *believe* that you are telling the truth, but it turns out to not be true?
As far as I can tell, the only way to do this would be to get a baseline for lying from questions the examiner expects the interviewee to lie to, and then compare future questions' results to that. Sounds like the exact same problems with current lie detectors.
Does this work differently somehow? And if so how could it possibly prove that it's accurate given individual differences in cognitive function?
It is likely there are disorders which "disable" parts of the neurological response. Pathological liars who show no remorse or guilt - even using the best scientific equiptment available - may still show up nothing. Conversely, there may be disorders which abnormally trigger responses. Synesthesia, for example, routes data to completely the wrong part of the brain. If it is possible for a related disorder to shunt signals into this "lie indictator", then a lie will be declared even if no lie has been given.
These are going to be rare problems involving the most extremes in society. In fact, the very people most likely to be put through such tests. I could be wrong - I'm not a neurologist - but I'm not going to be convinced of its safety as a lie detector until it has been proven effective on people who are naturally on the fringe of society anyway.
I would point out something else here, too. This test is going to seriously screw with the insanity plea. As I said, some mental disorders are extremely visible on fMRIs - I believe acute depression is one. Prosecution psychs (who absolutely do NOT want people being declared insane) are likely to fight tooth-and-nail to not have such devices used in such cases. The data would be far more vauable to the defence if any level of insanity was shown, as juries are more likely to be swayed by pretty pictures of abnormalities than technobaffle from an expert. They also couldn't get away with accusing the defendent of copying Law & Order, as the defence would have them strapped to the fMRI in no time flat.
Prosecutors would also likely be wary of it. They want high success rates, media glory and a shot at promotion up the legal system's ladder. Anything that might show that many witnesses are liars themselves would hurt their chances. That goes double in the UK if the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad are involved.
A bit of history for those who don't know it: West Midland's Serious Crime Squad was caught altering "confessions" and witness statements after the fact, torturing suspects and other things generally considered not very nice. I believe almost 200 people were released on appeal, after that was discovered.
A bit of tech history: It was discovered by using a device that contained a magnetic resonator, along with some very fine powder that was affected by magnetic fields. I think it was iron, but I'm not certain. Anyway, the statements are all typed up and then signed at the end by the witness or defendent. Paper that should not have shown very faint depressions was, and paper that should have did not, indicating that the sheets had been added after the signature had been written.
Apparently some investigation showed that this was indeed the case, and that most of the signed statements were totally different from the statements presented in court. After that, as they say, all hell broke loose.
It is certain that corruption in the UK police runs far, far deeper than was ever discovered. It is equally certain that American police (where pay may be affected by performance, and where the poor have no legal aid to speak of, so nobody to speak for them) are far worse. Introduce a machine that can actually prove that in court, and you risk blowing the lid of the entire system.
Even if everyone is intending to play fair (ha!), the number of appeals courts ruling for a wrongful conviction will almost inevitably go up. That's going to be expensive, as most States pay up in such cases. If it turns out that such rulings are likely to be common, I susp
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Just when we are on the verge of discovering that paralel dimensions, paralel universes, should we abondon the idea of paralel truths?
I remember a time, about 25 years ago, when Maury Povich was serious reporter. He was on the local news at WTTG in Washington, DC. Then, he tried to be Phil Donahue, and it's been deeper into the muck with him ever since.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Lying is central to sexual selection, measuring fidelity, and to judging one's honesty in contrast. It is a "necessary evil", one that kids must practice (and succeed at) in order to truly mature.
This is bad for everyone- very bad, and not just for chronic liars (who usually give themselves away anyway).
I suggest you read Slashdot
For those who have never had an MRI of their head, it is important to understand that an MRI is not a trivial undertaking. I had one last year and had to be given anti-anxiety medication to be able to tolerate being stuck in a narrow tube for 45 minutes. I had never had a claustrophobic incident in my life previously but the confined space of an MRI gave me one. Anti-anxiety medication would likely affect the ability to do lie detection. Unless my health or life is at stake, I would not have an other one. If what the doctor was checking for wasn't a very serious condition, I would canceled test after getting in the machine. I would never take an job where I'd have to agree to be screened by MRI as lie dectector.
There is a sci-fi novel called "The Truth Machine" by James L. Halperin and it's about a young genius who makes it his life's goal to build a truth machine.
It's not too bad. If you're interested in something like this, maybe worth a read. Defintely NOT hard sci-fi though...
The Truth Machine: A Novel of Things to Come
James L. Halperin
ISBN: 0345412885
April 1997
Random House Publishing Group
BookKoob Entry:
http://www.bookkoob.com/book/0345412885.htm
Not finished reading it, so no review out of me.
The future is fucked. Our minds aren't even sealed anymore.
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
There's a novel I read a while ago that explores the implications of this - The Truth Machine by James Halperin. What if there was a perfect lie detector? Then any criminal trial could be conducted in 10 minutes. Ask the guy if he did it. If he says no and the lie detector says yes, guilty. Execution is scheduled for tommorrow. Actually kinda scary.
Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
Now us Americans won't have a good excuse to torture people in secret prisons overseas anymore.
You're not a good liar. When I lie, I rapidly convince myself that whatever I'm saying is the truth. Doublethink, basically. I make the falsehood real.
You're not a good liar. When I lie, I rapidly convince myself that whatever I'm saying is the truth. Doublethink, basically. I make the falsehood real.
:)
Well, submit yourself for testing. See if you can convince yourself faster than the machine can detect your brain activity. That might be entertaining
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I guess that's why the summary said that attorneys said this would be more useful for civil cases -- the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination. However, you may not get that protection in civil suits.
They also say it could be useful for people who are innocent and want to prove it to the court. We could at least make a public request for the Enron guys to submit to the test, since they claim they are innocent. Then when they refuse, we can ridicule them further. It's not much, but I think those guys deserve every bit of ridicule we can lay on them. Lord knows the courts are horrible at punishing white-collar crime. That couple that put the finger in the Wendy's chili will probably do more time than any of the Enron guys.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Why do we need brain scans to identify Lars of Metallica?
Although they might not be so thrilled that you broke their MRI machine. . .
www.linuxpenguin.net
If that were truly the case then a more accurate use of the polygraph would be to switch the labels on the "lie" and "truth" blinkenlights :-)
You dare interview ME! Why you SOB)*&$)(*^&^*$&^*&$*^&$*!!@!@!@!
To add to the fun: what if the success rate is only (say) 90%? That means you'll have one in ten giving either a false positive, or a false negative.
Unless this can be absolutely 100% accurate, 100% of the time (which I very much doubt), I'm not convinced of its worth.
I always lie?
"Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
That's it's not like memories are as simple as things you believe and things you don't. Consider a story, a work of fiction, that you hear, and like, and commit to memory. Perhaps consider the extreme, a play where you literally know it word for word. Now, this is a very real memory, and when you recall it, your mind works like it does when you recall anything else, not like when you are making something up (ie. lying). But, of course, you don't believe it to be true, you believe it to be a story.
Well, such a technique can be applied to lying. You have a cover story and you practise that story, you ready it to yourself, you tell it over and over, you make it your own. It gets to the point where it is a memory. You are aware that it's a lie, but you can recall it like a true event. It's instant, you don't think about it any more than you'd think about any other story, true or not.
Now I am not a Psychologist, but I have studies it, and I don't think fMRI gives you the resolution to tell the difference between a memory of real events and a memory of fictional events because there's just not a difference. We know, of course, what is real and what is not (at least most of the time) but it's still stored the same way. What an fMRI will get you is the ability to tell if someone is recalling or processing. If someone is processing, that probably means they are making shit up, if they are recalling they aren't.
That's useful for catching someone who doesn't have a story made up, or doesn't have a good one, but probably isn't really any harder to defeat than a polygraph. If you have your cover down and know it like your favourite book, your brain patterns aren't likely to give anything but normal memory recall.
Do remember: This thing measures blood flow in the brain, not thoughts. It's a pretty crude device, all said and done.
Purchase/licence/... this technology, make it work remotely, and Mr. Orwell be be your friend forever.
Perhaps we should all (slashdotters included) have imbedded liar chips installed at birth.
I wonder if you can use the machine as a training aid to learn how to lie better. You could practise telling a lie, and then look at the scan to see what unusual brain activity there was. After a while you will get a feeling for which feelings you experience correspond to which parts of the brain. Then you might be able to gradually train yourself to not experience that brain activity and those feelings. With luck this would also reduce the external physiological signs of lying. You might also start to convince yourself that you were telling the truth.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
No-one politically minded seriously believes the Labour Party (presently the party in government in Britain) to be socialists.
Their policies are virtually indistinguishable from the Conservative (right-wing) party, the previous government. They have continued to privatise what were once national industries, in niches that should be nationalised. They are behaving just like any other organisation that is slightly giddy from a heady infusion of corporate money.
The only difference between them and the right-wing party is that at least the right-wing guys are honest enough to admit that they are capitalist bastards. In fact, I think the Conservatives are actually more liberally minded - at least they advocate personal choice as a good thing (even if the choice is basically "pay the corporations lots of money for a shitty service, or starve and die"). The Labour party just make it compulsory to pay the corporations to provide a shitty service.
The third party is probably the most honest, in that they admit that our public services are all fucked up and they would need to raise taxes to pay to fix them. Which is why the British public will never vote them into power, because they are quite happy to pay corporate bastards and bitch about it, but threaten to deny them a few beers a year to make sure they can get access to a (state healthcare) dentist, and they'll go for the beer every time. Never mind that they will probably save more money than they would spend in taxes.
Pah.
A 90% success rate implies that 1 in every 10 innocent people gets labeled guilty. Suppose you run an investigation and you've got a group of 50 people, and you're sure one of them did it. You scan them all. Then you end up with a group of some 4 to 8 people with a 90% probability that it includes the perpetrator.
So, yes, this system is a great solution, but not for the problem "who did it?". No, it is a great solution for the problem how we can fill our prisons as quickly and subjectively as possible.
> I'd like to see the Enron execs hooked up to this thing for a little Q&A.
A lot of people would rather see them hooked up to a car battery.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
....to make this sort of scanning mandatory for every newscaster and politician.
Actually, it wouldn't matter - a lot of the bluster would disappear behind "I don't know for sure," and, "I can't tell you that for reasons of national security."
Back to reading eyes and foreheads......
Why stop at the lawyers? Are the jurors lying? I'd love to see them stick the whole court into an MRI machine, but then who'd interpret the results besides another person in an MRI machine being watched by yet another person in an MRI machine ad infinitum. Recursion detected, halt.
Should make Court TV more interesting.
I don't think the cameras will work in the magnetic field of an MRI machine, so we must reject the whole concept.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Toss in a ball bearing or two . . .
You are assuming that facts are what is wanted, not a conviction. Police departments do not like having unsolved cases. I am not saying that they would want to convict an innocent person, just that they want a conviction. Interrogation for information that may save lives, as in a military questioning, is more concerned about the truth. The questioning is different accordingly.
Or how about detecting "bad think" in citizens.... Yet another technology that's never going to get abused, yay!
I want the interviewer run through it. The number of times I've bee told a lie in the interview is astounding (until you've been through a few successful interviews).
They say "it is a good working environment", I say "yes, I am a hard worker".
Hmph.
A colleague of mine (we work at the FC Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, http://www.ru.nl/fcdonders), told me that the anterior cingulate (which is found in these trials), is involved in sensosomatory processes, such as respiration, heart beats, skin sensitiviy... That means that seeing activation there in an fMRI scan is exactly the same as finding a difference in heart rate, respiratory rate or skin resistance, except it is much more expensive.
I have seen many things that I cannot explain without invoking a divine being, and that may seem like just a coincidence to anyone else. I also know that many people say things like "god told me that..." and come out with statements that are later proven to be false.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
And I suppose you really believe you're going to get a free ipod?
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
mention of peer reviewed studies supporting the manufacturers claims. All we have to support the idea this thing might work is the claims of the manufacturer and the reporter taking it for a spin.
I think the approach of going direct to the brain is promising. It's easy to fool a polygraphy using biofeedback techniques, doing things as simple as biting your toungue before you answer the calibration questions. People's access to their brain state is indirect and therefore presumaby it's harder to manipulate (although still not impossible, you'd just need special equipment).
But there's no way something like this should go into use in the courts without substantial scientific testing, and that means letting serious skeptics get a crack at at it in high quality research designs. There's no way it should even be used in investigative situations. There's too much at stake. Even if the system as it is now is exactly what we want to be using, we'll get a much better idea of the system's limitations after a couple of years of letting well funded and hostile researchers take their shots at it.
Investors are anxious to get a return as soon as possible, and that's understandable. But we don't want people sent off to Guantanomo or worse because of a excessive faith in an unproven machine; nor do we want our intelligence services wasting their time barking up the wrong tree. We have to be very careful of this: politicians love anything that looks like a quick fix. You can have something that will end terrorism once and for all, but if takes longer than the next election, it's a tough slog, and if it's two elections out it's impossible.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Considering that the polygraph has been shown time and again to be completely useless except as a psychological tactic to elicit confession, (noise is as strong as signal), I'd hesitate to take 'hope' that fMRI will be more accurate very seriously. Flipping a coin would be AS accurate.
The problem with the polygraph is that it measures fear of being disbelieved (if anything)rather than truth. Because the noise level is so high, they often measure the operator's belief more than the subject's. The question is, what does the fMRI really measure (if anything)? Are they SURE that whatever it measures is the same in all subjects? Will it be accurate for people on SSRIs? How about people who have had a pinprick stroke (the brain is very good at re-routing that sort of thing)? Brains tend to vary a fair amount in their fine structure. That's why a surgeon must probe each patient carefully with them conscious to answer questions rather than depending on a standard map. Are these variences accounted for?
No matter how large their sample size, there wil always remain an existant probability of any given subject being somehow outside of the norm in a way that is otherwise undetectable. Unfortunatly, like most scientific evidence, once non-scientists get their hands on it, all of the uncertainties will likely be forgotten. For example, from what I have seen, police are really bad about interpreting an indeterminate result in a scientific test whatever way they would like it to read. I WISH they were as good with it as depicted on the various 'CSI' shows.
While the courts have remained appropriately sceptical, it's unfortunate that many employers treat the polygraph as if it were infallible (including law enforcement and DoD, both of which should know better). How many careers have been torpedoed by junk 'science'.
You make it sound like fMRI is a direct measurement of 'thinking'. It isn't. BOLD detects increase in oxygen usage by regions of the brain. The relationship between blood oxygen levels and neural activity is still an area of active research - it's not a done deal.
Add to that the SNR. BOLD signals are not big. The data undergoes some heavy post processing. How big are your spatial filters? How good is your motion correction? You do realise your brain throbs with the pulse in the cerebro-spinal fluid? What's a confidence level in those results? Was the analysis set up to look for significant changes, or was it designed to find changes in the brain area(s) we think is involved in lying? So called academic research is full of papers by 'blob hunters' - people who massage their data until they find what they wanted. Always check the analysis.
Lying is a high function. It involves all sorts of things, lots of parts of the brain, many involved in several different tasks. Is this a technique for detecting lies, or questions the subject doesn't like?
As somebody working in MR research, I think the whole idea is laughable. It's going to be as unreliable as the polygraph. Oh...
This reminds me of a book named The Fourth K (Mario Puzo). Francis Xavier Kennedy is the president, and at one point, they administer advanced lie detection tests to find out whether or not anybody in the White House knew about a terrorist bombing. The test in the book sounds just like this does, but I can't recall whether it was specifically mentioned as an MRI or not (I know it was a brain scan, but I vaguely remember the use of tracers in the procedure)
Lying requires more brain horsepower than telling the truth and the parts of the brain used for lying are known. They are different than just recall.
What if you've rehearsed and memorized your cover story so you're just recalling your lie? How can this situation be distinguished from recalling a true memory?
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
At the end of the article, it mentiones that they are looking at the parts of the brain involved in self censorship and multi-tasking. This tells me that someone who'se afraid of blurting out a 'confession' to some unrelated matter under questioning (however unlikely or silly, interrogation does funny things to some people) is quite likely to read 'inconclusive' or just plain wrong.
It's remarkably easy to play little games to create that condition. For example, practice answering questions in Spanish, then when telling the truth to the obvious baseline questions in the test, remind yourself (Homer Simpson style) "don't answer in Spanish, DON'T answer in Spanish". It might also be useful to try mentally balancing your checkbook when answering baseline questions.
Considering that on the strength of very limited trials in lab conditions where no subject has had anything to lose by being branded a liar, they have already decided to put this out there by mid-year (and have said so on the record), what are the odds that they won't fall into the self deception trap when results from more real world tests don't look so good? When you NEED something to work, it's easy to convince yourself that it does.
multiple times (for government employment), I'm not sure I believe this technology is any better than a polygraph at "detecting lies" - which isn't very good. There are a lot of variables that would be involved, including individual physiological differences. I distrust anything that smacks of Absolute Certainty - especially when the guys who are selling this are the ones reporting great results. Polygraphers report fantastic results too. I'd really like to see rigorous independent testing of technology like this before it is implemented.
This machine seems to be more accurate at telling you that something is going on in your head, but to definitively say that that means that you're telling the truth or not seems to require the same leap of faith that the polygraph requires. I don't buy it, and won't until independent research can prove that that red blob on your MRI is a lie, and not you worrying about your job, thinking about your spouse, or a BSOD from the software processing the data.
Sorry, my bad.
Join Tor today!
Last summer, there was as a piece on This American Life about a man going through a lie detector test as part of the process of obtaining a security clearance. Everything went fine until they started asking about child pornography. The guy freely admitted that he looked at porn, but he conceded that at some point, inadvertently during one of his porn viewing sessions there might have been an under aged person in one of the pictures. He didn't know for sure either way, but since he suspected that it was probable that in all the pornographic pictures he's seen an underage person was present at some point, he couldn't answer the question "Have you ever looked at child pornography?" with a definite "no", and in the end received no clearance and had answered questions in such a way that made him out to be a pedophile, despite the fact that the worst thing he did was look at porn too much.
The problem with a purely 100% accurate 'truth telling' system is that it's too easy to neglect to measure intent or look at grey areas, especially when one freely admits to a minor infringement of the law or policy which put them inadvertently in a worst position. For example, in my younger days, from 1992 to 1996 I used to smoke marijuana on a pretty regular basis. I don't think it's a bad thing, and even though I don't do it anymore (I just don't feel like it) I have no issues with telling anyone who asks about it. Despite it being against the law, I don't see it any more dangerous then exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph or jaywalking.
However, nearly 7 years ago I returned to my apartment one night from a particularly difficult day at work. One of my neighbors offered me a pipe of what I assumed was marijuana, which I accepted. I took a long draw on it, and noticed it didn't taste anything like what I was used to (and for that matter, didn't look right burning in the bowl). I said to my neighbor 'this is some really weird weed', to which he replied 'It's not weed, it's crack'. I don't even know if it got me 'high', I was so pissed off. I spent the next 4 or 5 hours in a fit of rage walking around the block. I never spoke to that neighbor again. To me, this was a big deal.
And now, if somebody put me through any 'truth' machine, and asked me about drug use, I'd have to say that I have, in fact, smoked crack. A device like this combined with specifically directed questions could easily paint me as a real junky, even though I'm not and I have some pretty strong feelings about the harder, more dangerous drugs like cocaine or heroin, and even though I haven't smoked (nor have desired to smoke) marijuana in over two years.
I would hope, though suspect that it won't come to pass, that certain measures would be put in place that would look at intent or degree before reaching a conclusion. If I was asked 'have you ever stolen anything', the answer would be yes. 26 years ago, when I was 5 years old, I took a matchbox car from a local supermarket without paying for it. I still feel guilty about it, and haven't stolen anything since. If absolutes were used and I was obliged to be completely honest, I'd end up being thief in addition to being a junky.
No man or woman is compleatly without sin, and without looking at intent a machine like this could be used to make anyone look like a monster.
The Internet is generally stupid
...to periodically check everyone with political position. Please begin with president then continue with senators. And do not miss state secretaries.
There you are, staring at me again.
Agreed that it would be handy if such a thing as a "lie detector" existed. But wishing doesn't make it so. The technology may have changed a bit since the 16th century --polygraphs and MRI scans vs. throwing the victim into the water to see if (s)he floats-- but the lack of any credible double-blind studies to test any of this stuff remains the same.
The dilemma is that it's not possible to conduct a double blind-study that replicates the only conditions where a "lie detector" would have any utility. That is:
[a] Subject has a lot to lose by being detected as lying. The hypothesis that a person has the same pyschological reaction to answering "Is the year 2006?" as to answering "Did you murder John Doe?" seems at best unproven and at worst preposterous.
[b] Subject knows that Tester cannot independently verify what the truth of the matter is. By definition, the more reliable the independent evidence as to what actually happened, the less need there is for a "lie detector".
Thus, the only questions where "lie detector" effectiveness can be tested are so trivial and unrepresentative that test results demonstrate nothing about how the technique might work in actual operation.
Further, the hypothesis that all output from the "memory" area of the brain is "true" is contradicted by many published studies about memory.
Believing that "lie detectors" work as advertised seems as irrational as believing that torture produces the "truth" (as opposed to whatever the subject thinks his interrogator wants to hear).
Wow, people suck. You were scared because you were in a nasty noisy machine? It made you /anxious/ and they had to give you /medication/ for it? Goodness knows you wouldn't last very long if there was actually some invasive medical procedure to be performed. Heck, I'm surprised you can even take a ride on an aeroplane with those cramped seats and all the engine noise. Or do you "dose up" on "anti-anxiety" medication before each flight?
You remind me of friends who insist on expensive private dental care because they can't stand someone working on their teeth while they're conscious -- they pay someone to put them under general anaesthetic for routine dental work.
No politician will let this go through, otherwise none of them would be re-elected if they had to go through one. Come to think of it, no politician would ever get elected, and we would have mass chaos. This is a doomsday device for sure!!!! We're all gonna die, I just know it.
Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Well, clearly then, we must all take metal shop and refuse to wear goggles. Why, you may ask? Well, it seems that you can't get an MRI if you have any metal in your head, and the most common restriction is metal workers with minute metal flakes that get caught in your orbits (eye sockets). As it turns out, the massive magnetic fields can cause these otherwise innocuous bits of metal to shift, vibrate, and ultimately lacerate or puncture the eye, resulting in impaired vision or blindness. I had an MRI was and they were very adamant about me being SURE that I had no metals, insisting that I get a head X-ray just to be certain. Welding or grinding, anyone?
But they'd know you hadn't taken either one. Better yet...take them both--for a while. Take them both, put them in your pocket, revel in the fact that you have taken them both...then put one back before leaving the room. Did you take it? Yes (for a while).
So how many MRI scans have you had yet ? (MRI scans, _not_ CT scans. Albeit looking similar to the untrained eye, the two differ vastly in the amount of claustrophobia they will induce)
Inside the MRI scanner, the only thing you will see during the procedure is the inside of the tube, about 20 centimeters in front of your eyes. In comparison, the inside of a submarine is very spacious. And remember, you're not allowed to move.
George says (appropos of a polygraph test) "if you believe it yourself, you're not lying!"
wow, we just hook these up to all members of congress and the executuve branch and we'll have honest government in no time flat.
if they are not liars, they have nothing to hide? right?
"The lab I was visiting recently reported catching lies with 90 percent accuracy."
Yes, that would probably beat the US Criminal justice system for its general accuracy rate in determining guilt.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
But they'd know you hadn't taken either one.
Was the methodology really so bad that they determined the answer in advance?
It's a damned sight easier to dowse for water if you already know exactly where to find it, innit?
KFG
... shows it about 50% lying
The problem of false, flawed or planted memories needs to be dealt with.
In most cases, after a very short period of time, what people are adamant
is the *truth* is actually embellished or wrong.
The individuals personal perceptions of reality play a very large roll
in perceptions of truth.
The human memory never was what it used to be.
http://www.skepticfiles.org/false/mgfmsasc.htm
use more improvisation in all your stories so that its harder to tell the difference between a remembered story and a made up one.
Indeed, the opposite tactic of living the lie is being creatively truthful, and the latter may even be easier to pull off. Confabulate the truth and the actual lies become indistinguishable.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I want to see this employed in rape cases. SO many times it is ones word against another, and you have to be bias based on emotions you felt not facts in determining if the person is guilty. After all, there are women out there who use sex as a weapon every chance they get. And at the same time I think that there should be a heavier penalty for people who rape and sexually abuse others.
Of course it could be a great tool in use against politicians/lawyers/CEO's provided that their self delusion and professional lying carriers would still be detected. But I don't think we will ever see it used on bush/clinton/*name of current currupt president*.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
I saw this about three years ago, not sure it was Frontline, perhaps NOVA or something on the Science channel.
y .cfm?Story_ID=2897134
Googline for EEG lie detector finds it, "MERMER." Subject is wired to an EEG. There is a specific brain-wave pulse called "P300" when the mind recognizes something such as the scene in a photograph (such as wife, front door of one's home, the room where a murder occurred...). If it's not something the subject has seen before, there's no "recognition pulse." This method claims REMARKABLY high reliability: It is, he claims, 99.9% accurate at determining the veracity of certain sorts of statement. Discussion of this technique is near the end of this page:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStor
Tag lost or not installed.
> "Brain Scans to Identify Liars?"
Uh Oh, then the government, the media and all the rest of the sock puppets (like Hussein and Bin Laden) are in big trouble.
From the article:
Shapiro serves as an adviser to entrepreneur Steven Laken and has a financial interest in Cephos Corp...
Just the fact that Shapiro is financing this should invalidate the whole project. He's a professional manipulator trained on how to beat the system to win criminal cases at all costs. He doesn't care about truth, just how to win a case (and make profit from it). He could get a wife killer out of jail, and now he wants a machine to help him?
Shapiro: "OK OJ, here's what you do when you're inside the fMRI..."
The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
I would likely fail any lie detector test on any topic. I can imagine being sat down and grilled by Law Enforcement because someone matching my description performed some heinous activity, and convincing them that I am guilty.
As an example, I could be telling someone a story, but falling into a mental "positive feedback loop", which goes like this:
- "It really happened."
- (My god, they think I've made it up. Act truthful!)
- "Really it did"
- (Damn, now I'm acting defensive, just like a liar would.)
- "You don't have to believe me."
- (Crap, that obviously sounded like a liar's ploy to trick someone into believing him. Act natural!)
- "I can bring you photographs, a signed statement, and a private detective I've hired for this purpose."
- (Aw, hell, now they're giving me the squinty skeptical eye! Shoot, now I'm giving the liar's squinty eye because I'm picturing them doing the skeptical squinty eye! OK, act like nothing's wrong.)
- "I've really got to go now." (runs off)
Does anyone else act like this in stressful situations?
Looks like H. Beam Piper called this one. Now I am just waiting on the contragravity vehicles and collapsium armor.
now we can use the machine to find out if "This sentence is false!" is a lie!
Plastic helmet (base)
Tin Foil (blocks out old technology used by the supermarkets)
Aluminum Foil (blocks out newer technology used by the supermarkets)
Iodine (Tincture of iodine will do)
Alum (nope, got to use the real McCoy)
Lead strips (1/8" will do)
Newspaper, corn starch
Paint (spray, white and red)
Procedure:
Mix corn starch with water, mix with newspaper and adhere it to the helmet.
Next put on the layer of Tin Foil, then newspaper, then aluminum foil.
Next put the alum on top of the lead strips and that has to go right on top of
the aluminum foil, then newspaper it off to a smooth surface.
Now use the paint to paint the helmet white, do this a few times to get a nice
glossy smooth covering. Then paint on the side "CNN" or "Inpsector" "/."or even "Brooks Brothers"
Now I know your wondering about the iodine. That goes around your mouth to kill the bad
bacteria generated from all the old radio waves. They congregate there so just go around your mouth
for about 1/2" and your safe.
If you see someone with a funny helmet on and a ring around their mouth, you know they are no fool, they are protected just like you!
I agree whole-heartedly, this is why:
:)
If you sample enough people's brain activity under controlled circumstances knowing if they are or are not telling their perception of the truth you are BOUND to witness some similarities.
One could mistakingly think this was progress and expand the testing only reversing it, not knowing if someone is or is not lying.
Should that be successful you'd then have the false belief you could detect if someone is lying.
Until you have many established "norms" (i.e. you have done this controlled on about 3 billion people) you can not even begin to call it reliable.
I could propose (which I have on occasion) that you could determine an individuals predisposition to violence simply by examining their anthropometrical data. I could even show you cases where it seems entirely feasable and practical.
However, until I have a reference of at least a third of the worlds varied populations cross referenced for all possible types of humans (i.e. genetic mix of parents) I could not begin to even dream its accurate.
The way to have announced this is more "Look what we did" than "Look how it can be marketed". This isn't science its industry peddling grants again.
I'm off my soapbox
Tinkertim
Between the skepticism and paranoia, it's amazing anyone discusses anything on these boards.
For the skeptics:
Yes this is new and unproven technology. You do come to slashdot to read about that right? I know I don't come to slashdot to read up on 30 year old solar tech. I want to hear about the new and in development stuff. Sure it might not come to bpass and have the articles read like their begging for funding but it's still good stuff and a glimpse into a possible future.
For the paranoid:
It's called 'keeping honest people honest'. You lock your car door right? Well, guess what? Sometimes, that just means you get a smashed window as well as a stolen radio. I like the direction this technology might go in that it has the potential to free more innocent people and capture more guilty people. On average. Across the whole spectrum of civil and criminal court. And I would expect that before it is implemented that it would be cost effective and provably consistent.
For the comedians:
iMRI?? is there anything iPod's can't do? I can't wait to get my portable brain scan.
Yup, I called it. Apparently speaking the truth is "trolling" to some who would bury uncomfortable information.
Yeah, we had a crackpot like that at work for about 2 weeks... she just seemed to lie constantly, for no reason. She also seemed to really believe it.
Was she a Mormon?
I would be absolutely fascinated to see this technique tried out on a sample of the Mormon population.
As one who has had family and friends in that particular cult, I can tell you the ability of those in that subculture to lie to themselves and others, and work themselves into a position of believing it, is something I've not seen anywhere else (except perhaps in Washington, and I believe Washington would come in second place). Examples include but are not limited to: outright fabrications about other people and things they supposedly did/did not do (all of which were trivially disprovable, yet the proof was ignored and the lie spoken even more resolutely), dismissial of emperical proof as to the falseness of the religion itself (examples include DNA, ear-wax, facial-feature, and other studies disproving the core tenat of the Mormon faith and the Book of Mormon, that Native Americans are decendents of an Israelite named Lehi who was led by the Lord to bring his family to America, whereupon the bad sons Lamen and Lemual were cursed by God and given dark skin--I kid you not. Other examples include Egyptologists looking at the Paparyi the Mormon "Book of Abraham" is supposed to be a translation of, which has subsequently been shown to be a common burial document having nothing to do with Abraham, or any other Biblical figure, and the list goes on).
The deceitfulness of this subculture, both to themselves and to others, is quite well documented on the Recovery from Mormonism [exmormon.org] site, and surpasses even my (low) expectations based on my personal experience.
Alas, any such study would likely suffer the same fate this post is likely to suffer, and indeed the fate that most articles and literature critical of that religion suffer (despite mountains of factual evidence and well documented research): getting spiked (or moderated) into oblivion by those supportive of such groups.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy