Waterboarding When pledging Skull and Bones, new members learn about the society's storied traditions via Roger Hollander

While the debate over the legality of waterboarding has raged fiercely since the Bush administration declared that it was not torture, experts have conducted a parallel debate over the effectiveness of torture as a means of interrogation. After all, legality aside -- if it doesn't work, why do it?

So far, the debate has largely used anecdotes as evidence, but a new paper looks to neurobiology to end the debate. Writing in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Shane O'Mara, a behavioral neurophysiologist at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, claims that torture like waterboarding is specifically designed to interfere with the same part of the brain responsible for memory and decision making.

According to O'Mara, repeated high levels of stress can shrink the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex regions of the brain. Those regions control memory recall and higher level decision making. By attacking those regions of the brain, torture makes the victim more supple and less cagey, but also prevents the detainee from recalling accurate memories and picking the right information to tell interrogators.

Additionally, as those region undergo changes in reaction to torture, the brain becomes more likely to fix false memories. Thus, repeated waterboarding and questioning, like that applied to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad, increases the likelihood of false information.

Even worse, interrogators face a great deal of stress from performing the torture. This subjects their brains to the same warping as the victims, making the interrogators more likely to believe the misinformation disseminated by the detainee.

O'Mara then goes on to say that the practice of placing scary insects on detainees may be even more counter-productive than the torture. Controlled exposure to insects is a classic method used by psychologists to help patients overcome fear. By locking the detainee up with an insect, the interrogators are actually helping detainees ignore the very fear they hope to instill.

O'Mara does not confront the moral dimension of torture in his paper, and merely looks to explain what does and does not lead to accurate memory recall in stressful situations. Whether the US government rejects torture as abhorrent, or continues its practice as a necessary evil for protection against a dangerous world, this paper indicates that the torture techniques used up to this point have almost certainly caused more harm than good.

[via Ars Technica]

Want to read more articles on the military, aviation, and space? Subscribe to Popular Science today, for less than $1 per issue!

4 Comments

Some points about your analysis:

This does not mean that valuable information will not be gathered from such techniques. If the research is assumed correct, then it only states that there is some degradation in the quality of the information, the degree of which is not clear from your article.

Such interrogations are not performed in a vacuum by a single individual. And the analysis of information gathered from such techniques is performed by many others outside of the persons performing the interrogation, so the assertion that interrogators will believe false information is irrelevant.

Did O'Mara do any research regarding the nature and quality of the information gather through this technique from KSM? There are many who seem quite sure that valuable, actionable and verifiable information was gathered, and if that is a fact, then O'Mara's research seems lacking.

kastuff, excellent points.

Stuart Fox, illogical conclusion. We don't need the research of Shane O'Mara to determine if the techniques used on Khalid Sheik Mohammad did more harm than good. That's a value judgment. A lot of people would say that if the information produced saved lives, it was good that we got it. As for harm...the only harm done was to KSM, and according to the analysis done of his interrogation so far, there was no physical harm. Mental harm? Possibly, depending on how you define it.

Also, it would depend on the information desired. If you wanted his grandmother's social security number, it seems like a bad way to go. If what you want are the names of his best friends (something he knows and is unwilling to tell), then its effectiveness is not based on the subjects memory, but motivation. It would take massive brain damage to remove major memory, and that is what most interrogators want.

Also, with most interrogations, the questions have been asked beforehand (meaning that the information is in the front of the mind to begin with). The torture is meant to get them to divulge that information or disincentivize them from lying (you always ask many questions you know the answers to so that you can identify a liar).

I think that the only way to prove the point is to subject Bush and Cheney to the procedure and then ask them about the proof they had of Sadam having WMD.



June 2013: American Energy Independence

Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email

Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif