Symposium on unidentified flying objects: hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, second session, July 29, 1968.

186
altered, along normal pathways to the back of the brain
to allow for perception, the next question is how the
brain codes it. This involves the ability to deal with
detail, to make associations and spatial relationships,
and to do other intellectual work, all of which occurs
very rapidly and before the processed material is made
available at the tempero-parietal lobe level for com-
munication or for a reaction of any other kind. A great
many pathways and a number of brain areas are opera-
tive in this critical coding step, and a number of prob-
lems, both anatomic and physiologic, can affect the
process, either subtlely or grossly. The responsibility
of the clinician here would be to test cortical integra-
tive ability with the various neurologic testing tech-
niques 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, de-
ficiency, and neuropathologic—that can subtlely alter
cortical functioning and thus interfere with the coding
of an observation.
The next step in observer evaluation is the psychi-
atric 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 delu-
sions or lead a person to fill in with make-believe de-
tails (confabulate) the parts of a report that his brain
condition no longer allows him to remember. In addi-
tion, 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
witnessing 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 re-
lation 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 in-
stead of having had anything at all to do with an ex-
ternal 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 sub-
stantially affected his report or have only very subtlely
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 in-
dividual life and death decisions in courtrooms. On an
even grander scale, it shapes far-reaching diplomatic
and military policy. In the laboratory or other sci-
entific setting, when inaccurate, it can lead to an hor-
rendous waste of money and professional man-hours.
In all these situations, we should be demanding to
know more about the likelihood of a crucial observa-
tion 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 na-
tional 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 ex-
treme reliance on some of these individuals, it is sug-
gested that they be screened for observational in-
tegrity 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 knowl-
edge of at least three of those medical specialties which
focus on the central nervous ystem. It also demands
an eagerness to integrate certain aspects of each spe-
cialty, 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 neces-
sary examination techniques, the following outline
stresses processes, structures, and diseases that de-
termine the nature of reported observations. The spe-
cifics of the material are intended mostly for the non-
medical reader, since the question of observer credit-
ability 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 assess-
ment 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 dis-
orders 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 investiga-
tion and which of the later, special examinations will