dr. hartwig. if you want to add some suggestions we will enter those in to the record and entertain suggestions you may have and hopefully get those from you. i would like to recognize our panel witness, dr. philip rubin, executive officer of the haskins laboratories. you have five minutes. >> chairman broun, ranking member edwards and subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i am philip rubin. i currently serve in a number of roles inside and outside government that might be relevant to today's hearing. in addition to activities previously mentioned by chairman broun i am technical advisor formed to provide critical input related to analysis and methodology used in the s.p.o.t. program. i was invited to the research and science and behavior cognizance related to laboratory studies in evaluation of various tools, techniques and technology used in detection of the section. my written testimony provides historical background on selected activity in the behavioral sciences r

dr. hartwig. do you want to add some suggestions, we would be glad to enter those into the record and entertain the suggestions you have. now i'd like to recognize their final witness and that is dr. philip irvin chief executive officer of the haskins laboratories. dr. ruben you have five minutes for your oral testimony. >> chairman broun ranking member edwards and distinguished members of the committee -- subcommittee thank you for their pretenders to speak. i'm here as a citizen however i currently serve or have served in nam number of roles both inside and outside of government that might be relevant to today's hearing. in addition to the activities briefly mentioned by chairman broun i'm a member of a technical advisory committee that was formed to provide critical and since related to analysis and methodologies used in the s.p.o.t. program. i was invited here today described the describe the current state of research in behavioral sciences related to laboratory studies and field evaluations a

dr. hartwig and myself. i think if you look at the literature carefully you will find that it comes out supporting me, but how can you know, and when you get a disagreement among scientists, you need to establish an advisory panel of experts who have no vested interests and no connections to hear from the people who disagree and look at the literature and resolve it, because you are being given in this testimony advice that is 190 degrees opposite in terms of is there a scientific basis for what is being done. but you could argue, and i do not know whether dr. willis wood, that if the validity study holds up to scientific scrutiny to everyone who is looked at, if it is as successful as the report is, imagine getting that kind of success. it is of scientific interest to find out. >> thank you, doctor. go ahead. >> i would like to respond to the doctor's point. that was the key recommendation of our may 2010 report, an independent panel reviewing the results of this current a .i.r. validation. it needs to be n

dr. hartwig and myself. i think if you look carefully at the literature you would find that it comes out supporting me. but how can you know? i think you need to do when you get a disagreement among scientists is you need to establish an advisory panel of experts who have no vested interest and no connections to hear for the people to disagree and look at the literature and resolve it because you're really being given in this testimony advice that is 180 degrees opposite in terms of is there a scientific basis of what's being done. but you could argue, and i don't know if mr. willis, dr. willis would, that if this validity study holds up to scientific scrutiny, to everyone that's looked at it, to this committee, is it as successful as the report is, you got to be doing something right to get that kind of success. so maybe it's a scientific interest. >> thank you, dr. ekman. mr. lure, he's chomping to the bit here. >> i want to respond to dr. ekman's point. that was the conclusion of the may, 2010, report was