Opinion ID: 2623542
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Peer review and publication.

Text: {25} The second factor we consider is whether the control question polygraph has been subjected to peer review and publication. Anderson, 118 N.M. at 291, 881 P.2d at 36. Peer review and publication is important because submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of `good science,' in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786. Regarding this factor, the district court concluded that the control question polygraph has been subjected to limited peer review publication, but that the relevant publications do not enhance confidence in the test results, particularly considering the effectiveness of counter-measures. {26} The committee that prepared the NAS Report gathered and evaluated as many polygraph validation studies as possible. The committee located 217 research reports of 194 separate studies. NAS Report, supra, at 107. Of those studies, 102 were deemed of sufficient quality to be included in the committee's review of the polygraph. Id. Each of these studies met the following minimum criteria developed by the committee: (1) documentation of examination procedures sufficient to allow a basic replication; (2) independently determined truth; (3) inclusion of both guilty and innocent individuals as determined by truth criteria; (4) sufficient information for quantitative estimation of accuracy; (5) polygraph scoring conducted blind to information about truth; and, (6) in experimental studies, appropriate assignment to experimental groups germane to estimating accuracy (mainly, guilt and innocence). Id. While the NAS Report concluded that the polygraph studies that met the criteria for consideration do not generally reach the high levels of research quality desired in science, it nonetheless observed that a sizable number of polygraph studies have ... appeared in good-quality, peer-reviewed journals. Id. at 108. The NAS Report speculated that so many polygraph studies have appeared in high-quality journals because of the practical importance of the topic and the willingness of journals to publish laboratory studies that are high in internal validity but relatively low in salience to real-world application. Id. {27} Furthermore, both Petitioners and the State submitted as exhibits a number of articles on the validity of the control question polygraph, some of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. While the State argues these articles are insufficient and cannot be relied upon to establish the validity of the control question polygraph, that is not our focus at this point in the Alberico/Daubert inquiry. We are only looking at whether the scientific technique has been subjected to peer review and publication, not the validity of the scientific research or the scientific community's response to the research. While there has certainly been a heated debate in the scientific community on the validity and accuracy of the control question polygraph, that debate is a question of weight and not of admissibility. Anderson, 118 N.M. at 298, 881 P.2d at 43. The fact that an ongoing debate exists is all that is required for this factor to be deemed satisfied. Notwithstanding the NAS Report's criticisms of the polygraph validation studies conducted, we conclude that the NAS Report sufficiently establishes that the polygraph has been subjected to peer review and publication. We now turn to the validity of the scientific research on the control question polygraph.