Baker report, 1968 congressional hearings

testing techniques available to him. He must also rule out (by careful history, general physical examination, and certain
laboratory' measures) the innumerable disease states -- toxic, infectious, endocrine, metabolic, deficiency, and
neuropathologic -- that can subtly alter cortical functioning and thus interfere with the coding of an observation.
The next step in observer evaluation is the psychiatric part which, if properly carried out, will probably be the statistically
most fruitful for uncovering observer creditability gaps. This is in part because the same types of disease processes listed
above for interfering with cortical integration (coding) also can cause such mental aberrations as frank hallucinations and
delusions or lead a person to fill in with make-believe details (confabulate) the parts of a report that his brain condition no
longer allows him to remember.
In addition, there are the purely psychological problems, based in background factors, which lead an observer to
deliberately fabricate or unwittingly distort what he has seen. If consciously driven, his motivation may be fame, fortune,
competitive strivings or some rather specific, complicated need which has been tapped by finessing the event he is
reporting. If the distortion has its roots at an unconscious level, it is likely that it was triggered by something about the
event in relation to the patient's remote past. In the case of a functionally psychotic person, the entire observation may be
the product of his own intrapsychic life instead of having had anything at all to do with an external event. On the opposite
end of the continuum is the normal or only mildly neurotic person whose "hang-ups" are such that they have either not
substantially affected his report or have only very subtly colored a small detail. It may be just as important to ascertain this.
Other aspects of the psychiatric part of observer examinations are the matters of intellectual differences and language
factors, both of which would have some bearing on the reporter's strengths and limitations as a creditable and adequate
observer.
A sound systematic method for ascertaining observer creditability would have widespread application. People in the legal
profession grapple daily with this problem [2]. Eye-witness testimony determines individual life and death decisions in
courtrooms. On an even grander scale, it shapes far-reaching diplomatic and military policy. In the laboratory or other
scientific settings, when inaccurate, it can lead to an horrendous waste of money and professional man-hours. In all these
situations, we should be demanding to know more about the likelihood of a crucial observation before acting on it.
Many people in science, technology and government perform basically observational roles. Some of these individuals are
in such responsible positions that what they think they see or say they have seen, and how they respond to it, could
profoundly affect the course of human events. (Such a statement will not seem overdramatic or exaggerated to those
readers who have some knowledge of how, for example, our national security system operates.) The choice of these people
on the basis of tenure, military rank or years of good conduct seems hardly pertinent, since these factors don't necessarily
reflect anything about the state of their central nervous system. Given our extreme reliance on some of these individuals, it
is suggested that they be screened for observational integrity prior to placement in key positions and that they also be given
periodic follow-up evaluations.
All-encompassing medical assessments of observers have not, to this author's knowledge, been previously proposed. This
is probably because developing the idea and applying the methods entails a working knowledge of at least three of those
medical specialties which focus on the central nervous system. It also demands an eagerness to integrate certain aspects of
each specialty, for purposes of problem-solving. The desired end, in this case, is a more complete understanding of the
individual observer.
Rather than extensively elaborating on the necessary examination techniques, the following outline stresses processes,
structures, and diseases that determine the nature of reported observations. The specifics of the material are intended
mostly for the non-medical reader, since the question of observer creditability is so often his business and since he will be
the one in the position to decide when to request the special assessment.
Method
The initial phase of integrated eye-witness assessment is a general medical evaluation. This involves, besides the complete
physical examination, a careful history and selected laboratory' studies. The rationale for beginning in this way is
screening, since many disorders of other organ systems are well-known for their adverse effects on central nervous system
functioning. Knowledge about the background and current status of the observer's general bodily health will alert the
physician to which areas will need further investigation and which of the later, special examinations will
[[186]]