Nörobilim, Nöroteknoloji, Yalan Tespiti ve Etik

Hukuk ve güvenlik hizmetinden sorumlu kurumlar yalan ifadenin, bilime dayalı kanıtlarla tespit edilebilirliği üzerine çalışmaları her zaman ilgiyle takip etmişlerdir. Poligrafiden günümüze yalanın tespiti için kullanılan cihaz ve yöntemlerin optimizasyonu ve yeni araçların yalan tespiti için uyarlanması süreci devam etmektedir. Yeni araçlar arasında fonksiyonel manyetik rezonans görüntülemenin fMRG ileri teknoloji içermesi, pahalı olması ve sofistike değerlendirmeler içermesi sonuçlarının güvenilirliğini abartılı göstermekte ve büyük ilgi görmektedir. Günümüzde fMRG ile yalan tespiti ticari bir hizmet olarak arz edilmeye başlanmıştır. Vokal stres analizi, yüksek çözünürlüklü kameralar ile görüntü analizi yöntemleri gibi daha yeni yöntemler dahil yalan tespit yöntemleri ele alındığında kimi yöntemin başarısı tatmin edici olmamakta, kimi yöntemin ise %90’a yaklaşan başarısı laboratuvar ortamında simülasyon yapan gönüllülerden elde edilmiş veriler ile sınırlı kalmaktadır. Yalan ifadenin saptanmasına yönelik uygulamalar hakkında eldeki veriler, bu görüntüleme yöntemlerinin tam olarak geçerliğine, güvenilirliğine ve kullanılabilirliğine henüz olanak vermemektedir. Etik yönden tartışma yaratan iki konu, geçerliği tam olarak kanıtlanmamış bu tespit yöntemlerinin insan üzerinde uygulama alanı bulması ve kişinin bilişsel düşünce süreçlerine izinsiz, iradesi dışında girilebilmesidir. Nöroetiğin “bilişsel özgürlük” kavramıyla dikkat çektiği bu sorun alanında uygulamalar henüz, toplumsal ve kamusal anlamda yeterince tartışılmış ve cevaplanmış değildir. Yalan tespit tekniklerine toplumda var olan ilgi ve merakın yükselmesi ile tartışmalı noktaların genişleyerek artacağı öngörülebilir

Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, Lie-Detection and Ethics

Law and security institutions have always been interested in scientifically proven objective detection of deception. Since the era of polygraphy, efforts to optimize current devices and adaptation of new equipments for deception detection has been on progress. Among these new instruments, functional magnetic resonance imaging fMRI is very popular and its high technology, high cost and sophisticated evaluation might be causing an overestimation of its validity. Today, lie-detection using fMRI is being offered for commercial use. Including recent methods like voice stress analysis and image-analysis of high resolution camera recordings, many several methods fail to reach a satisfactory success rate or some of them reported to have success about 90% is criticized for their limited data from simulating volunteers in laboratory environment. Current data from lie-detection studies do not meet standards for complete validity, authenticity and applicability in practice. Enrollment of these unconfirmed detection methods on human and its potential feature of the intrusion into cognitive brain processes without consent and against free will are the two subjects raising ethical concerns. Neuroethics addresses these issues by a concept as “cognitive liberty” which has not been adequately discussed in public spheres; and controversial issues seem to get expanded with the demand for lie-detection

Keywords:

lie-detection, neuroscience neurophysiology, ethical issues,

PDF

___

1. Vrij A. Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and its implications for professional practice. Chichester: Wiley, 2000: 1-20.

2. Ekman P. Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage. 4th Edition, New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2009: 25-42.

3. Vrij A, Mann S. Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Appl Cog Psychol 2001; 15:187-203.

4. Drummond P, Lance J. Facial flushing and sweating mediated by the sympathetic nervous system. Brain 1987; 110:793-803.

5. Sokolov EN, Cacioppo JT. Orienting and defense reflexes: Vector coding the cardiac response. In: Lang PJ, Simons RF, Balaban MT Eds. Attention and Orienting: Sensory and Motivational Processes. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1997, pp. 1-22.

6. Kleinmuntz B, Szucko JJ. Lie detection in ancient and modern times: A call for contemporary scientific study. Am Psychol 1984; 39:766-776.

7. Lykken DT. A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. 2nd edition, New York: Plenum, 1998: 26-51.

8. Reid JE. A revised questioning technique in lie-detection tests. J. Crim. Law Criminol 1947; 37:542-547.

9. Lykken DT. The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. J Appl Psychol 1960; 44:258-262.

10. Gale A. The polygraph test, more than scientific investigation. In A. Gale Ed. The polygraph test: Lies, truth and science. London: Sage 1988, pp. 1–9.

11. http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-eppa.htm (son erişim: 22.02.2012).

12. Meijer EH, Koppen PJ. Lie detectors and the law: The use of polygraph in Europe. In: David VC, Rita Z Eds. Psychology and Law: Bridging the Gap. London: Ashgate, 2008, pp. 31-50.

13. Grubin D. The potential use of polygraphy in forensic psychiatry. CMBH 2002; 12:45-53.

14. Nakayama M. Practical use of concealed information test for criminal investigation in Japan. In: Murray K. Ed. Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego CA: Academic, 2002, pp. 49-86.

15. Matte JA. Forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph: scientific truth verification, lie detection. New York: Williamsville, 1996 : 11-101.

16. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, National Academies Press, 2003, 298-322.

17. http://www.bilimseloyuncaklar.com/U94,8,oyuncak-yalanmakinesi-mini-soklu.htm (son erişim: 22.02.2012).

18. Saxe L. Science and the GKT polygraph: A theoretical critique. Integr Physiol Behav Sci 1991; 26:223-231.

19. Kleinmuntz B, Szucko JJ, On the fallibility of lie detection. Law Soc Rev 1982; 17:85-104.

20. Verschuere B, Crombez G, De Clercq A, Koster EH. Psychopathic traits and autonomic responding to concealed information in a prison sample. Psychophysiology 2005; 42:239-245.

21. http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector) (son erişim: 22.02.2012).

22. Tsiamyrtzis P, Dowdall J, Shastri D, Pavlidis I, Frank MG, Ekman P. Imaging facial physiology for the detection of deceit. Int J Comput Vis 2007; 71:197-214.

23. Gamer M, Rill HG, Vossel G, Gödert HW. Psychophysiological and vocal measures in the detection of guilty knowledge. Int J Psychophysiol 2006; 60:76-87.

24. Harnsberger JD, Hollien H, Martin CA, Hollien KA. Stress and deception in speech: evaluating layered voice analysis. J Forensic Sci 2009; 54:642-650.

25. Kiehl KA. A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: evidence for paralimbic system dysfunction. Psychiatry Res 2006; 142:107-128.

26. Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118:2128-2148.

27. Farwell LA, Donchin E. The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 1991; 28:531-547.

28. Rosenfeld JP, Soskins M, Bosh G, Ryan A. Simple, effective countermeasures to P300- based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology 2004; 41:205-219.

29. Miyake Y, Mizutanti M, Yamahura T. Event related potentials as an indicator of detecting information in field polygraph examinations. Polygraph 1993; 22:131–149.

30. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-22 (son erişim: 22.02.2012).

31. Bles M, Haynes JD. Detecting concealed information using brain imaging technology. Neurocase 2008; 14:82-92.

32. Kozel FA, Johnson KA, Mu Q, Grenesko EL, Laken SJ, George MS. Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biol Psychiatry 2005; 58:605-613.

33. Davatzikos C, Ruparel K, Fan Y, Shen DG, Acharyya M, Loughead JW, Gur RC, Langleben DD.; Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: application to lie detection, Neuroimage. 2005 Nov 15;28(3):663-8.

34. http://noliemri.com (son erişim: 22.02.2012).

35. http://www.cephoscorp.com (son erişim: 22.02.2012).

36. Racine E, Bell E, Illes J. Can we read minds, In: Giardano J, Gordijn B. Eds. Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives in Neuroethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp.244-249

37. Racine E, Illes J. Neuroethics, Singer P, Viens AM. Eds. The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp.495-504.

38. Ağırbaşlı D, Ulman YI. Genomik risk skorlaması perspektifinden koroner arter hastalığı, etik yaklaşım ve öneriler, Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 2012 Feb 3. (e-pub) doi: 10.5152/akd.2012.044.

39. Boire RG. Searching the Brain: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Brain-Based Deception Detection Devices. Am J Bioeth 2005; 5:62-63.

40. Simpson JR. Functional MRI Lie Detection: Too Good to be True? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2008; 36:491-498.

41. Langleben DD, Dattilio F. Commentary: The Future of Forensic Functional Brain Imaging. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2008; 36:502-504.

42. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research involving Human Subjects, amended by the 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, Korea, October 2008 http:// www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html. pdf?print-media-type&footer-right=[page]/[toPage] (son erişim: 22.02.2012).

43. Council of Europe, Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Biomedical Research, Strasbourg, France http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/healthbioethic/ Activities/02_Biomedical_research_en/195%20Protocole%20 recherche%20biomedicale%20e.pdf (son erişim: 22.02.2012).

44. Oviedo Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Oviedo, Spain, 4.IV.1997 http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/ Html/164.htm, (son erişim: 22.02.2012).

45. Tovino SA. Functional neuroimaging and the law: Trends and directions for future scholarship. Am J Bioeth 2007; 7:44-56.