Opinion - News Analysis   

Is narcoanalysis a pseudo-science?

Dr. B. M. Mohan, Director, Forensic Science Laboratories, Karnataka has sent this rejoinder to the article, "We need to talk about narcoanalysis," by Sriram Lakshman published on the Op-Ed page ofThe Hinduof May 2, 2007:

THE ARTICLE reflects a series of misconceptions and an incorrect understanding of the procedures, science, and technologies of narcoanalysis as applied to the unravelling of the truth of crime. The differences that lie in the narcoanalysis required for psychotherapy and the one for the probative truth of crime have not been properly appreciated. When psychiatrists use narcoanalysis for diagnosing mental illness, the following parameters are not strictly adhered to. They are (1) depth of anaesthesia, (2) techniques of handling individuals in the state of trance, and (3) verification about whether the revelations made during the trance are either true or false. If the purpose of the narcoanalysis is obtaining the probative truth of crime, then all the above parameters are to be essentially monitored; and consequently revised anaesthetic procedures and updated techniques of handling individuals in the state of trance have now been developed. Since Dr. P. Chandra Sekharan had no exposure to these aspects of narcoanalysis, his views are of no relevance or consequence.

The first half of the information contained in paragraph 5 of the article is contrary to the congressional investigation of 9/11 in the U.S. The prime accused, Abu Zubaydah, was picked up by CIA in 2003, and the confessions made by him during the sodium pentathol-aided interview are now available on the web. It is not necessary to go over the shocking revelations made. In pursuance of this, it may be seen from a book Confessions of a Terrorist by Gerald Posner [2003] that the "U. S. administration privately believes that the Supreme Court implicitly approved using such drugs in matters where public safety is at risk." The importance and necessities of narcoanalysis are debated at length by the U. S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Solomon: 753 F.2d.1522 (9th Cir. 1985), and Indianapolis v. Edmond , 531 U.S.32 (2000). So far as the other observations made in the same para are concerned, they cannot be accepted as sodium pentathol is not known to produce hallucinations, delusions, or fantasies.

Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, Professor of Psychopharmacology at NIMHANS, Bangalore, has concurred with the fact that "it is difficult to lie consciously depending on the depth of narcoanalysis." This is one of the most important factors favouring probative truth and consequently recoveries have been made in large number of cases under Section 27 of IEA. The other observation of Dr. Andrade's could be the psychiatrist's view of the psychotherapeutic uses of narcoanalysis.

The revelations made during narcoanalysis have been found to be very useful in solving the sensational cases of the Mumbai serial train blasts, blasts in Delhi and Malegoan, and various other sensational cases with national and international ramifications. It is found to be effective to prove the innocence of about 20-25% of all those individuals examined. Further, narcoanalysis and brain mapping techniques have thus not only revolutionised the causes of crime investigation but also have led various courts to redefine the very scope of the constitutional provisions under Article 20 (3).

Support from courts

The decisions rendered by various courts may be seen in the following:

Supreme Court of India in Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No.3381 of 2006 dated 10th April 2006; the Order of the High Court of Karnataka in CRL petition No:1964/2000 dated September 2004; ALL MR (Cri) 1704, (2004) [Bombay High Court]; Cri.L.J.2401 (2006)[Madras High Court]; All. MR (Cri) 74, (2005) [Orissa High Court]; Interim Order of High Court of Allahabad in HC- 40552/2003 dated 2-11-06; Order of High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No3380 dated 22-11-06.

The Government of India, after considering such impacts, has brought out a few amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. The recent amendments [2005] made to Section 53 of Cr.PC are positive and proactive towards the recognition of the importance of scientific tests, which include narcoanalysis and brain mapping.

The science behind narcoanalysis is primarily based on the interactions between the drug and GABA (gama amino butyric acid), primarily a neuro transmitter inhibitor via a molecular complex ion formation. The rate of mobility of inhibitory neurons is controlled by the developed anaesthetic processes, which ultimately take the individual to the state of trance. It is the adaptation of forensic psychological techniques of handling individuals in the state of trance that brings out truths of crime. All the anaesthetic parameters used and the levels of consciousness are measurable in quantitative terms. The procedures and statistical data analysis based on the test results obtained by conducting tests on a large number of individuals [345] are under the process of compilation for publication. Therefore, it is primitive, inappropriate, and objectionable to use the term "pseudo-science."

It is clear from the facts described above that most of them are at variance with those appearing in the article. Therefore, the article has failed to project the necessities, present status, and importance of narcoanalysis in the right perspectives, particularly in the forensic context. It has thus caused damage not only to the technology but also to the causes of crime investigation and the criminal justice delivery system.

I offer these remarks so that a correct evaluation can be made of the usefulness of narcoanalysis by those concerned with the investigation of crimes, the administration of the criminal justice delivery system, other user agencies, and society at large.

Sriram Lakshman, who researched and wrote the article, responds:

Dr. Mohan alludes to "revised anaesthetic procedures and updated techniques of handling individuals in the state of trance." The article, "We need to talk about narcoanalysis," in its title and body calls upon FSL Bangalore to enlighten us on precisely these methods. We will all be the richer for this knowledge.

If Dr. Mohan shows that narcoanalysis does have the 96 to 97 per cent success rate he attributes to it, it will perhaps rekindle interest in sodium pentathol as a therapeutic agent, and also swing the debate on the science of narcoanalysis in the practice's favour. The privilege of this knowledge, however, must remain with a select few until the underlying data are released, and peer reviewed and put through scientific scrutiny.

U.S. not gold standard

Dr. Mohan is on target in suggesting that the United States may have used truth serums after 9/11 in interrogating suspected terrorists. In Gerald Posner's book Why America Slept (not "Confessions of a Terrorist," which is a www.time.com article that cites the book), Posner apparently says the U. S. used sodium pentathol to interview suspected terrorists in Asia. Further, a 2002 Department of Justice memorandum to the White House debates the use of truth serums. Does this mean the U. S. is using truth serums covertly? Perhaps. Or that post 9/11 the U. S. is considering using truth serums in some cases? Perhaps. Unlike the Indian case, these instances are behind the eyes of the law and the public. Moreover, American interrogation techniques are far from being the gold standard, having earned the ire of the international community and large sections of the American population and legislature. We in India need to have an open debate on the subject regardless of what is happening in the U.S. "We need to talk about narcoanalysis" referred to the American experience for its science because scientific studies, unlike legal and ethical standards, apply across geographical borders.

Dr. Mohan is wrong in citing the 1985 U.S 9th Circuit Solomon case as supportive of narcoanalysis. In fact, the case has also been used by authors opposed to the practice to support their position. A reading of the case will reveal that the doctor who conducts narcoanalysis in the case wavers on his views of the practice. It is surely significant that the doctor "admitted that narcoanalysis does not reliably induce truthful statements." Solomon is not a judicial endorsement of narcoanalysis; it merely proposes that narcoanalysis does not corrupt the subsequent testimony of the accused or witness in court.

Where's the data?

Remarking on Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade's views about false memories and narcoanalysis, Dr. Mohan correctly states that the views "could be the psychiatrist's view in psychotherapeutic uses of narcoanalysis." It only seemed logical and proper for a journalist researching this subject to consult psychiatrists and psychopharmacologists to assess the effects of pentathol on the mind — whether the drug is used in the therapeutic or investigative context. Trained psychiatrists are surely aware of the difference between psychological truths and probative truths. Which authorities does the FSL, Bangalore rely on to assess the "probative truth" of data retrieved during narcoanalysis? Anaesthesiologists who administer the barbiturates? Clinical psychologists who conduct narcoanalysis? Police personnel who request, and benefit from, leads retrieved during narcoanalysis? Is there a body of independent experts who can evaluate a comprehensive study of the process?

Dr. Mohan has said: "The revelations made during narcoanalysis have been found to be very useful." "We need to talk about narcoanalysis" does not argue that there has never been any use to narcoanalysis. In fact, the article states: "We must give narcoanalysis its due and grant that it has provided valuable leads to the police in some instances... It is logically consistent even for a pseudo-science to produce reliable outcomes in particular cases. The overall reliability and science behind the practice can only be determined after statistical analysis of a sufficiently large sample."

FSL, Bangalore still needs to prove to the public in India and the scientific community worldwide that narcoanalysis is not a pseudo-science, and that it is "primitive, inappropriate, and objectionable" to use that term. Given the scientific data available on the subject in the public domain, FSL, Bangalore needs to prove that narcoanalysis is a reliable method of getting at the truth.

Incidentally, in his editorial page article, "Key issues in the Sohrabuddin case," published in The Hindu of May 7, 2007, Dr. R. K. Raghavan, a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, has this to say about narcoanalysis in relation to police investigations: "I hope she [Geetha Johri, Inspector General of Police, CID] will not... go overboard and resort to questionable methods, just because she is under pressure to produce results. There is already a report that the accused officers [D. G. Vanzara, Rajkumar Pandian, and M. N. Dinesh, who have been arrested in the Gujarat false encounter killings case] are going to be subjected to narcoanalysis. The reliability and the ethics involved in this mode of investigation are in doubt. There is here a need for caution and circumspection."

As for judicial decisions, there is clearly a gap between what science has and has not achieved, and what the courts believe science has achieved. This underlines the need for a long overdue debate among independent authorities to assess the progress, if any, that `narcoanalytical science' has made. This will not be possible in India until the Forensic Science Laboratory in Bangalore, a significant champion of the practice, publishes its data.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

What will President Sarkozy bring?
Of Husain, hate and harassment
What happens when the water runs out?
Is narcoanalysis a pseudo-science?
A last gasp effort to save the whaling ban?
Implications of bids for Dow Jones and Reuters
Corrections and Clarifications
Inspirational
Encounter episode
Disturbing
War on the roads

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu