Below the fold is letter that was sent to American Psychological Association (APA) President Alan Kazdin via FedEx on February 6, 2008, and to members of the APA Council of Representatives via the Council listserv Thursday morning, February 7, 2008.
Kenneth Pope's resignation came about, as you will read in his letter, in large part because he disagreed with the APA's lack of a stance regarding detainees and their interrogations.
Dr. Pope is a goliath figure in psychology, especially regarding ethics in psychology.
This is not the first time the APA has been on the wrong side of a human rights issue. They currently, as they have for decades, allow psychology training programs to have the coveted APA-accreditation, even when the univeristies where the training programs are located discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Alan E. Kazdin, Ph.D.
President,
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
Dear Alan,
With sadness I write to resign from the American Psychological
Association. My respect and affection for the members, along with my 29
year history with APA, make this a hard and reluctant step. Chairing
the Ethics Committee, holding fellow status in 9 divisions, and
receiving the APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public
Service, the Division 12 Award for Distinguished Professional
Contributions to Clinical Psychology, and the Division 42 Award for
Mentoring reflect a few chapters in my APA history.
I respectfully disagree with decisive changes that APA has made in its
ethical stance during the past 6+ years. These changes moved APA far
from its ethical foundation, historic traditions, and basic values, and
beyond what I can in good conscience support with my membership.
I would like to note two examples of disagreement. First, the years
since 9-11 brought concern over psychologists' work that affects
detainees. APA has stressed psychologists' "vital role" regarding "the
use of ethical interrogations to safeguard the welfare of detainees" and
ways that psychologists "help advance the cause of detainee welfare and
humane treatment." Yet in its ethics code, APA chose not to recognize
any humane treatment requirements governing psychologists' work with
detainees as enforceable standards.
Historically, when concerns arose about the impact of psychologists'
behavior on groups at risk, APA moved decisively to create specific
requirements and limitations in the ethics code's enforceable
standards. These groups included persons "for whom testing is mandated
by law or governmental regulations," "persons with a questionable
capacity to consent," research participants, "subordinates," clients,
students, supervisees, and employees. Facing concerns about the impact
of psychologists' behavior on research animals, for example, APA created
an enforceable standard supporting the "humane treatment" of laboratory
animals. But for detainees, APA chose not to adopt any enforceable
standards in the ethics code mandating humane treatment.
The code's numbered ethical standards "set forth enforceable rules of
conduct." The code emphasizes that although other code sections should
be given consideration, even the code's "Preamble and General Principles
are not themselves enforceable rules..." APA's decision to adopt an
enforceable standard regarding "humane treatment" of animals but not to
adopt an enforceable standard regarding "humane treatment" of detainees
turns APA away from its ethical foundation, historic traditions, and
basic values that should endure even in the midst of post-9-11 risks and
realities.
My second area of disagreement concerns the ethics code that Council
adopted August 21, 2002 (which took effect June 1, 2003). The 2002 code
echoes the earlier code in setting forth the following enforceable
standard: "If psychologists' ethical responsibilities conflict with law,
regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make
known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the
conflict." But the 2002 code created a new enforceable standard: "If
the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to
the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal
authority" (Standard 1.02).
This new enforceable standard, in my opinion, contradicts one of the
essential ethical values voiced in the Nuremberg trials. Even in light
of the post-9-11 historical context and challenges, I believe we can
never abandon the fundamental ethical value affirmed at Nuremberg.
An attempt to modify Standard 1.02 was placed only in the nonenforceable
section. In the 5 years since creating this new enforceable ethical
standard in a sharp break with the past, APA chose to make no
qualifications, restrictions, or other modifications to Standard 1.02 in
the code's enforceable section.
The code's 89 enforceable standards identify diverse ethical
responsibilities, some representing the profession's deepest values.
The code recognizes that these ethical values can stand in stark,
irreconcilable conflict (no matter what steps the psychologist takes to
resolve the conflict) with a regulation, a law, or governing legal
authority. APA's creation of an enforceable standard allowing
psychologists to violate these fundamental ethical responsibilities in
favor of following a regulation, a law, or a governing legal authority
clashes with its ethical foundation, historic traditions, and basic values.
Such changes in APA's approach to its enforceable ethical standards over
the past 6+ years embrace issues of enormous complexity and conflicting
values. I've tried during these years to read as widely and carefully
as possible in these diverse areas, comparing secondary sources to
primary sources and evaluating claims in light of evidence. On one
narrow topic, for example, I've read and maintained an archive of
citations of over 220 published works (including those from APA) that
specifically address the controversy over physicians and psychologists
participating in the planning and implementation of detainee
interrogations. (The archive is at: kspope.com/interrogation/index.php).
Over the decades I've written articles and books examining APA's
earliest discussions about ethical responsibilities and accountability,
the choice to create an ethics code, the innovative methods used to
create a unique code, the revisions and controversies over the years,
and APA members' ethical views, dilemmas, and behavior. During the
code's distinguished history, it has set forth APA's essential ethics
and the standards to which members agree to hold themselves accountable
through the Ethics Committee's formal enforcement. For me, the two
examples above represent defining issues for APA. Steps that APA has
taken or avoided since 9-11 mark a sharp shift in values and direction.
I respectfully disagree with these changes; I am skeptical that they
will work as intended; and I believe that they may lead to far-reaching
unintended consequences.
These changes take APA so far away from its ethical foundation, historic
traditions, and basic values, and from my own personal and professional
view of our responsibilities, that I cannot support them with my
membership. In light of my respectful disagreement with APA about these
fundamental changes, it is with great sadness and regret that I resign
my membership.
Sincerely,
Ken
Kenneth S. Pope, Ph.D., ABPP