PBS Innovation: Brain Fingerprinting
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth
Neuroscientist, Filmmaker and Series Producer
Wednesday, May 05, 2004; 1:00 p.m ET
While conventional lie detectors rely on fluctuations in respiration, perspiration and blood pressure, "Brain Fingerprinting" is based on a sub-set of brain waves that register as brief electrical patterns when a person recognizes familiar stimuli measured by a computer. PBS Innovation takes a look at the new technology as a possible forensic tool that may far surpass the accuracy of the polygraph test.
Neuroscientist Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., filmmaker Michael Epstein and series producer Jared Lipworth were online Wednesday, May 5 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the documentary.
Farwell is the inventor of Brain Fingerprinting® technology. He also invented the Farwell Brain Communicator, which allows an individual to communicate directly from the brain to a computer and speech synthesizer using electrical brain activity. He is the chairman and chief scientist of the Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc. He has also written "How Consciousness Commands Matter: The New Scientific Revolution and the Evidence that Anything Is Possible" (Sun Star Press, 2001).
Epstein is a Peabody, Emmy and Writers Guild award-winning producer, writer and director. Some of his American Masters series received an Emmy for Best Non-Fiction Series and was named Best Arts Documentary at the Banff International Television Festival. His work also includes PBS Frontline specials. Lipworth is the series producer for Thirteen's new technology series, "Innovation." His works include Emmy-nominated "Secrets of the Dead III" and the Emmy award-winning "Secret Life of the Brain."
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Jared: Hi everyone. Thank you all for joining us today and for watching the Brain Fingerprinting program last night. We hope we will be able to answer some of your questions about the program and/or about the Innovation series as a whole.
_______________________
Tuscaloosa, Ala.:
Do you feel this new technology will be recognized one day as a sure "exoneration" for those that are innocent?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Dr. Farwell ("LF")Brain Fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court in the Terry Harrington murder case. What this technology does is to determine scientifically whether or not specific information is store in a person's brain. When Brain Fingerprinting shows that a person does not know the specific details of a crime, it is up to a judge and jury to decide if this provides a reasonable doubt. It is important to note that Brain Fingerprinting provides a scientific result of "information present" or "information absent,' that is, does the person know the specific details of the crime that he would have no way of knowing unless he committed it. The judge and jury use this information to make their decision as to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not guilty. The science of Brain Fingerprinting is reliable and accurate, but it does not attempt to replace the human judgment of a judge and jury with respect to guilt or innocence.
_______________________
Vienna, Va.:
How did the idea for brain fingerprinting come about and how did the filmmaker learn about the subject?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Jared: When we first heard about Brain Fingerprinting, we immediately thought it had potential as an Innovation program. We researched the topic and spoke to Dr. Farwell, and realized that this was a perfect example of a technology at the tipping point--making its way from the lab into our culture. It was clear that the jury was still out about whether it was all it was cracked up to be or a technology that is being prematurely introduced, and that is exactly the kind of story we were looking for for the series.
We saw this program as exploring the process of innovation and of the disemmination of advances--and we were able to explain how brain fingerprinting worked and follow it through some current cases that might help determine its future.
_______________________
Harrisburg, Pa.:
If I understand this correctly, polygraph tests primarily register stress, and the way it works is that a person tends to show more stress when lying. Yet, if a person can lie without stress, or has a psychologicial difficulty differentiating between truth and falsehoods, the polygraph will not work. What exactly do these tests register, and what, if any, are the pitfalls of using these tests if there is a person with a psychological ability to register variant brainwaves that provide false negative readings when lying (or does such a person not exist?)
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : The polygraph measures an emotional stress response in an attempt to determine if the individual is lying. Brain Fingerprinting does not depend on emotions or stress. It scientifically measures whether or not specific information is stored in a person's brain. Brain Fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court, unlike the polygraph. Since the test is objective and it picks up the brain response at the moment or recognition, Brain Fingerprinting is equally applicable to a sociopath, pathological liar, etc. It simply determines whether the person has the details of the crime stored in his brain or not. Brain Fingerprinting, unlike polygraph, does not depend on the subjective interpretation of the person administering the test.
_______________________
San Diego, Calif.:
Where are you located for your research?
How do I get to hear or see the discussion?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : We are located in Seatle. You can see more details at http://www.brainfingerprinting.com, our web site.
_______________________
Groton, Conn.:
I've had numerous EEG tests for epilepsy. I had many "little needles" piercing my skull for this test. How was the patient given an EEG? It looked like an elastic band on his head.
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Brain fingerprinting uses a headband with embedded sensors. It is totally non-invasive and involves no discomfort.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.:
This is for Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth:
I am surprised that you took Dr. Farwell's claims at face value and did not include dissenting scientific views. While you did mention a dissenting forensic view, from the prosecuter in the Oklahoma case, you failed to mention the views of Emanuel Donchin, Farwell's mentor and the person who jointly discovered the scientific phenomena underlying Farwell's techniques. You must be aware that Donchin is a critic of Farwell's use of these techniques in the forensic arena. You also fail to mention the views of Peter Rosenfeld, who claims that it is possible to mount effective countermeasures to Farwell's techniques. The bottom line is that a casual viewer of the program might well come away with the conclusion that Farwell's techniques are universally accepted in the scientific community as valid forensically, and that is certainly NOT the case.
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : We actually met with both Dr.'s Donchin and Rosenfield. We found Dr. Donchin's criticisms useful, and I believe we incorporated well them into the narrative of the show. A key dramatic moment in the program, I believe, is when Innovation notes the subjective error in the construction of one of probes in the Jimmie Ray Slaughter brain fingerprinting test. This gets to one of Dr. Donchin's key critisms. Namely, that while the underlying science of Brain Fingerprinting is sound -- that is the p300 -- the subject way in which each test is constructed makes the whole process more art than science. Dr. Farwell obviously has a different view, and we felt obliged to include that as well.
As to Professor Rosenfeld, I, along with my producing partner, Caroline Suh, did not feel that Dr. Rosenfield's work does not directly address Dr. Farwell's. Specifically, his contermeasures, shaking your hand, blinking, creating interference in the electrical signals to the EEG, are accounted for in Dr. Farwell's test. These data as seen as corrupted or compromised and eliminated. With the three different kinds of stimuli - Targets, Probes, and Irrelevants, it was our estimation that false positives or false negatives were not a factor in brain fingerprinting. All Dr. Rosenfield's work proved was that you could train someone to get a non-response. Dr. Farwell has long admitted to this, and it was not a factor in either the case we followed in Macon, Missouri or with Jimmie Ray Slaughter.
Hopes this answers your question.
Michael
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.:
Could brain fingerprinting be joined with DNA testing? Was there any given thought to combining both forensic efforts?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Brain Fingerprinting can be used in conjunction with DNA. DNA and fingerprinting are applicable in only about 1% of cases. The brain is always there. In the Jimmy Ray Slaughter case, after the show was completed, DNA evidence came out supporting Jimmy Ray Slaughter's innocence.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.:
To the filmmaker: How long did it take to make the documentary and will you be doing another program on following a case that might use brain fingerprinting?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : We started working on the show in October. We shot the test in Fairfield in November and went to Missouri and Oklahoma just after the New Year. So it was about six very intense months of filming and editing with a great team of filmmakers.
I'd love to follow up with brain fingerprinting as it follows new cases, and to see how the Slaughter and Wolf murder cases play out.
Thanks for your interest.
Michael
_______________________
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Scientists, including the inevitable naysayers to a new discovery, agree that the science underlying Brain Fingeprinting is valid, reliable, and accurate. There has been some discussion on the point of how soon we should release this new discovery to the public. I withheld Brain Fingerprinting from the public for 15 years after I invented it to do more research with the FBI, CIA, US Navy, and others. Terry Harrington, who after 24 years in prison for a crime he did not commit is now a free man. Brain Fingerprinting showed the record in his brain did not match the crime. JB Grinder had a record in his brain of the murder of Julie Helton, as shown by Brain Fingerprinting, and he then pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. In my view this is like fast tracking for AIDs research. Sure, let's do more research, but while doing more research, let's use the best life-saving technology we have.
_______________________
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : On the subject of the naysayers who say we should have waited longer to release the technology to the public. When Jimmy Ray Slaughter came to me and asked me to help bring out the truth, he had a life expectancy of about 90 days. I had to say yes or no, I couldn't say "wait." I chose to use Brain Fingerprinting, and for me that was the right choice. We may well save an innocent life, particularly now that DNA has also provided exculpatory evidence (after the show). -- Dr. Farwell
_______________________
St Joseph, Mo.:
Dr. Farwell, Do you know how police departments and attorneys raise funds to pay for investigative services like yours? Is the service available for purchase now, or is it still in the research stages? Thank you
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Brain Fingerprinting is available now, and is being used in this country and also abroad by police, government agencies, attorneys, and private individuals. The funding structure differs in different agencies. -- Dr. Farwell
_______________________
Austin, Tex.:
Hi, Dr. Farwell. I understand Brain Fingerprinting is being used in some police departments. Is this right?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Yes, Brain Fingerprinting is being used by police departments. You saw on the show the Macon County, MO Sheriff's department using Brain Fingerprinting in an ongoing murder investigation. Previously, in the same jurisdiction, Brain Fingerprinting showed that JB Grinder had the details of a murder stored in his brain. He pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. There are a number of other examples, some of which I can talk about and some I cannot. Dr. Farwell
_______________________
Salem, Ore.:
Thank you for sharing your time. Having seen many prosecutorial abuses of technology in court proceedings -- such as DA's drawing utterly unwarranted analogies between bullet lead composition analysis and DNA -- in the headlong rush to convict someone/anyone of crimes, I cannot help but see this new technology as being fraught with at least as many risks of misuse and distortion as not. Just as with neutron activation analysis, no matter how correct, accurate, and valid the science may be, once PEOPLE are involved, it can easily be transformed into a tool of perversity.
Thank you for sharing the information, and I sincerely hope that this topic will stay alive in the press as its uses develop, so that MAYBE the public will not become too confused about what its proper and improper uses, as they seem to have done about batch matching of bullet lead.
Cheers and good luck!
Rob
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : There certainly are abuses, but in the Slaughter case I didn't see abuses as so much a rush to judgement. And, I think it's important to note, bullet composition analysis was seen at the time as good science. So, yes, I think there should be real caution when applying science in the courtroom, especially in death penalty cases.
That said, look at the good that DNA analysis has done. I think the imporant thing to remember is that science is not a panacea to good police work, and a strong legal system with vigorous checks and balances. It's easy to think, with the popularity of shows like CSI, that science can solve any crime in 42 minutes, but as you point out it can just as easily be used to convict the wrong person.
Thanks for your interest,
Michael
_______________________
Columbia, Md.:
The recitivism rate for child sex offenders is notoriously high. Since these individuals seemed to be "hard-wired" for this kind of activity, I wonder whether your technology could be used as a pre release program to screen individuals more prone to reoffend?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Brain Fingerprinting can be used to determine what information is stored in a person's brain. Sex offenders sometimes deny their crimes even after being convicted. This can help to show who actually did commit the crime. This may help in rehabilitation. The technology does not, however, reveal a person's future tendencies -- it's not Minority Report.
_______________________
St Joseph, Mo.:
Hypothetically, in the case of Lacy Peterson in California where cause of death is unknown, if the suspected killer was shown murder instruments, would a brain reaction to one of them indicate that was the instrument used to murder her?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : In one study for the CIA, we did show that we could detect details about a situation that were unknown based on brain responses. However, the normal use of the system is to detect whether a person knows critical details of a crime that are known only to the perpetrator and investigators.
_______________________
Laurel, Mont.:
How much from the brain can we learn to help us develop artificial intelligence?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Jared: Much work is being done in various parts of the world to use what we know about the brain for the development of artificial intelligence. Some researchers are trying to build AI machines from the bottom up--using simple processes to perform complex tasks. Others take the opposite approach, trying to build machines that can mimic the brain. These efforts are still a long way from producing a machine with the compexity of the human brain, but everything researchers learn about the brain helps. Artificial Intelligence is an area Innovation is following closely, so some time in the near future you may see a program that delves into exactly the question you asked.
_______________________
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Dr. Farwell. I think the debate on the scientific and ethical issues is healthy. Scientifically, even Dr. Donchin stated under oath that the science is valid and well accepted in the scientific community. The question is, how soon do we release this science to the public? Scientists who make their life doing research are entitled to their point of view, and I respect that. But there are real consequences to delay. How much longer should we let an innocent man like Terry Harrington, who was exonerated of murder by Brain Fingerprinting, stay in prison for a crime he did not do? How many more victims shall we let JB Grinder rape and murder (he had at least 4 we know of) before we use Brain Fingerprinting, as we did, to help put him away? What about Slaughter, who would have been executed within a few weeks if not for Brain Fingerprinting? My view is, we have a life-saving technology, and it's my responsibility as a scientist to use it to save lives. If others choose a different course of action, I don't have a problem with that.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.:
Michael, I understand your answer to my question, and I did see the correspondence between that particular comment during the broadcast and Dr. Donchin's views. However, that incidental mention did not appear to me to meet the usual criteria of scientific journalism. I believe you are obligated to present credible dissenting views from the dissenter him- or herself, not as an incidental comment. Again, I believe that the casual viewer would see that as a forensic and not a scientific matter, given the absence of any attribution of the comment to Dr. Donchin or any actual interview with him; the latter would have been, in my view, the more appropriate course.
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : I understand your. My perspective was as a filmmaker. I believe that it was very significant, in fact vital, that our narrative show the inherent problems with the construction of the brain fingerprinting test. I think having the issues you are concerned with arise organically within the narrative has much more impact that a another talking head commenting in front of a desk. And I believe the point is made just as well.
I understand your dissent from this, but I do feel that either way the program incorporated very well the human, subject elements that may limit brain fingerprinting's access to the courts. It was Innovation, remember, who noted that the shirt Melody Wuertz was wearing was not of a rock group, but instead a vampire movie. Every other media organization that covered Dr. Farwell's initial report took his claims at face value. (we should, however, get no extra points for this.)
Still, I believe that there is reasonable debate about brain fingerprinting, and it is not too far fetch to say that it may one day have important practical applications in crime fighting. That was also important to point out in our show.
Michael
_______________________
St Joseph, Mo.:
Dr. Farwell, would you say the most difficult part of using your technology is determining the probes that a criminal will have stored in the brain? In watching the program, I wondered about (and it was aluded to) when the perpetrator doesn't notice what color shoes the victim was wearing, for example. And I thought, they may notice something like a figurine in the house on the way to a murder in another room (just because it catches their attention). Could you elaborate on this? Thank you
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Dr. Farwell. There are three phases. First, an investigation discovers the salient features of the crime, which are used for the probes. The investigation may not be perfect, and depends on the judgment and skill of the investigator and many other factors. Then the Brain Fingerprinting technology determines scientifically if these specific items are stored in a person's brain or not. Then the human judgment of the judge and jury takes this scientific data, along with all other evidence, into account in making the determination of guilty or not. The acid test is, if a judge and jury know that a person does or does not have certain specific information -- the probes -- stored in his brain, can we conclude that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not. This goes beyond the science. The science only tells us what information the person has. Guilt or innocence is a human, legal judgment made by a judge and jury, not by a scientist or a computer.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Will the show be re-aired? I didn't get to see it but it would be fascinating to know how the filmmaker caught images inside a person's head or filmed how a person would react to evidence -- nervous twitch, etc.
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Jared: The best way to find out when it will be re-aired is to contact your local PBS Station. If they don't have it listed for rebroadcast, send them an e-mail or give them a call.
For the Washington D.C. area, here is a rebroadcast schedule from the WETA website:
Tuesday, May 4 9:00 pm WETA TV 26
Tuesday, May 4 9:00 pm WETA HD Showcase
Wednesday, May 5 7:00 am WETA PLUS
Wednesday, May 5 9:00 am WETA PLUS
Wednesday, May 5 11:00 am WETA PLUS
Wednesday, May 5 1:00 pm WETA PLUS
Wednesday, May 5 3:00 pm WETA PLUS
Wednesday, May 5 5:00 pm WETA PLUS
Friday, May 7 3:00 am WETA TV 26
Friday, May 7 8:00 pm WETA HD Showcase
Saturday, May 8 12:00 am WETA HD Showcase
Saturday, May 8 4:00 am WETA HD Showcase
Sunday, May 9 9:00 pm WETA HD Showcase
Monday, May 10 2:00 am WETA HD Showcase
Monday, May 10 10:00 pm WETA HD Showcase
Tuesday, May 11 3:00 am WETA HD Showcase
Saturday, May 15 7:00 pm WETA HD Showcase
Sunday, May 16 1:00 am WETA HD Showcase
_______________________
Vienna, Va.:
Ok I don't understand. What if you witnessed a scene but you were called on as a possible offender. Wouldn't you be reacting to the same stimuli and so how would you prove your innocence?
Also, how do you distinguish key evidence versus things that people see daily and could react to easily?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Dr. Farwell. Excellent question. Brain Fingerprinting will tell us what information is stored in a person's brain, not how it got there. It's like fingerprints. If a person's fingerprints are at a crime scene and his story is that he was there an hour before the crime for a legitimate reason, or even during the crime for a legitimate, non-criminal reason, then we wouldn't use fingerprints to try to show he was the perpetrator. If a person knows all about a crime from being there but claims to have been a witness, we would not apply Brain Fingerprinting to this person. On the second question: We tell a person what he will see and why it is significant. For example, just before the test we say "You'll see three items, one is the murder weapon." He may have seen a pistol, a knife, and a baseball bat many times, but ** IN THIS CONTEXT OF THE CRIME ** only one is significant, and only one produces the response.
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.:
Michael, this is quite fascinating! Did experts help you identify situations or reactions in the brain or physical response that would target the suspect? What was the most surprising thing you learned in making the film?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : I'm glad you enjoyed the program. I think the most interesting thing I learned during the processes of making the show was how the brain measured the stimuli in context.
If you remember in the test we ran in Fairfield, IA, the word flashlight was probe (information that only the suspect should know). Now obviously we all know what a flashlight is, so I initially thought it should register a spike of recognition for all our subjects. What amazed me was that only suject B, the individual who had plead guilty to the crime, got a p300 for this stimuli. The other subjects did not recognize "flashlight" as significant in the context of the crime.
Michael
_______________________
Laurel, Md.:
How does brain fingerprinting compare to other forensic tools being invented or researched -- what are they?
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Jared: There are always new technologies being tested and developed, and accpeted technologies are always coming into question long after they have made their way into our legal system. A perfect example is the bullet evidence that was admitted at the time of Jimmy Ray Slaughter's trial but has since been discredited. There are still questions being raised about the limitations of DNA evidence, and even fingerprinting has been called into question.
_______________________
Nederland, Colo.:
What does science say about the "deja vu" experience, and does it pertain to your technology? I recall many experiences where I perceived visual or audio information and initially identified it as a memory, or related to a memory, or as a memory-novelty gestalt. My uninformed hypothesis is that there is some kind of neurological input/output tag that distinguishes memory from novelty, and that can occasionally flip the wrong way. How likely is a "deja vu" experience to cause a mistake in your technology? Thank you.
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : The test presents both targets (things we know they know) and Probes (information we want to see whether or not they know) This enables us to discriminate. (Ernie Robson, President Brain Fingerprinting Labs for Dr. Farwell)
_______________________
Washington, DC:
I missed the show last night so this may have been covered. Can you address the issue of sensitivity (probability of detecting true memories when the subject was present/has knowledge) and specificity (probability of indicating there are no true memories when the subject was not present). Before one wants to trust this instrument it seems one would want extremely high figures for both these probabilities.
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : In the nearly 200 tests to date, there have been no false positives and no false negatives. That means the probabilities were extremely high. (Ernie Robson for Dr Farwell)
_______________________
Chicago, Ill.:
Is there any chance that this becomes the way that people are identified in the future? For exampel, with all this talk about biometric readings as a form ID'ing people-- this would seem to be the way to ensure that nobody messes with them,
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : I think that there are significant constitutional questions with brain fingerprint that may one day have to be sorted out--assuming it becomes more widely accecpted in the scientific community.
Key among them is Fifth Ammendment rights. I can't really forsee a time when a person could be compelled to take a brain fingerprinting test. Even though it is promoted as non-testimonial, the courts would have to decide whether your brainwaves are like phyiscal evidence (fingerprints, DNA, etc.). My uneducated guess is that compulsary brain fingerprints are more the stuff of science fiction than reality.
Also, this is not a technology that works in seconds or minutes. It takes hours to brain fingerprint a willing subject.
Thanks for your interest.
Michael
_______________________
Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D., Michael Epstein and Jared Lipworth : Jared: As always, thank you all for your great questions and for participating in all of our Innovation chats. We hope you enjoyed the series. If you missed any of the previous Innovation programs, please contact your local PBS station for information about when they will be rebroadcast. For more information about this program or the series as a whole, check out our web site at pbs.org/innovation.
Thank you Larry and Michael for participating today and thanks to the Washington Post for hosting all of these chats.
Keep an eye out for future episodes of Innovation on PBS…
_______________________
|
