dr. ekman's point. in fact, that was the key recommendation of our may 2010 report was to have an independent panel review the results of this current air validation effort. we think it's very important for a panel to be established that has no ties to the current program, that's not an advocate of the current program to help weigh in on this very issue. i think it's very interesting that the panel shows a lack of consensus which was the basic point i made in my earlier statement. there's to scientific -- >> well, a subject like this you'd expect to be a broad range of disagreements. has the panel, like what you're recommending, been suggested in one of the budgets or lined out somewhere, or is something -- >> yeah. dhs agreed to establish an independent panel to review the methodology as well as to review the final results, but as mr. willis indicated, the the final results of this latest validation effort have only recently been submitted, i believe he said as of last night. >> i think i've run out of

dr. ekman's point. in fact, that was the key recommendation of the 2010 report was to have an independent panel review the validation. we think it's very important for a panel to be established that has no tied to the current program, that's not an advocate of the current program, to help weigh in on this very issue. i think it's very interesting that the panel today shows a lack of consensus, which was the basic point that i made in the earlier statement. there's no scientific -- >> on a subject like that, you'd expect a broad range of disagreements. as the panel like what you are recommending been suggested on one the budgets lined out? >> dhs agreed to establish and review the methodology of the a.i.r. validation, as to review the final results. as mr. willis indicated, the latest results have only recently been submitted, i believe he said, as of last night. >> i think i've run out of time. i'm going to yield back. >> mr. health care alken. >> i'm a new member. i have been traveling much more in the

i guess i would agree with dr. ekman in the sense that we are at the point where there's two things going on. most of the studies, if you look at something like voice stress analysis and look at the -- there was an analysis done coming out of the defense department, what you basically show in most of these studies is no more than chance, and agreeing with both of dr. hartwig and ekman, there's a lot of controversial here and very little science and validation. it's not just about field evaluation when you can do it. again, there has been a committee established on the spot regarding the report. i'm on that committee. and we have not been asked to do any scientific validation of the overall program, just to look at one pick thing is, are the results different than chance? i'm agreeing here is what's really needed on these issues before we continue to invest more money is to really establish without, you know, putting any information at risk and stuff like that, establish a baseline about what's doable, what's not doable,