Search

We here respond to Staal's (2018) critique of the Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology. Staal proclaimed that there are no major ethical problems in the domain of operational psychology, and, if there were, only operational psychologists would be qualified to address the problems. We respond to Staal by providing (a) background to the Brookline Workshop, (b) a case of abuse by a Behavioral Science Consultant psychologist at Guantánamo, (c) perspectives-- ours and Staal's--on the ethics of operational psychology, (d) implications of the doctrine of civil--military relations, and (e) key considerations for ethics in operational psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper comments on Cushman’s “The Earthquake That Is the Hoffman Report on Torture,” placing the paper in the broader context of discussion of the ethics of psychologist involvement in national security interrogations and other military operations. In a preliminary discussion of the Hoffman Report, a few details that Cushman does not get quite right are pointed out. It then discusses the reasons for American Psychological Association leaders’ behavior in this episode and the mechanisms used to deflect attention from what was really happening. Broader issues regarding the appropriate ethical roles for psychologists in national security operations, or “operational psychology,” are then discussed. Along the way issues are raised regarding the appropriate Telos or goal of psychology as a profession and the distinction between science and scientism. While strongly defending science, Cushman’s call for a re-moralizing of psychology is endorsed. The paper ties it all together with a call for a Truth Commission to create a permanent record of the involvement of psychologists and health professionals with the national security state in the wake of 9/11 and to make sure that lessons are learned for future generations of psychologists and citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commissioned amidst allegations of collusion between American Psychological Association officials and Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense officials involved in the enhanced interrogation programme, the July 2015 Hoffman Report documented a decade of collusion between American Psychological Association and Department of Defense officials in unethical national security interrogations. However, interrogation support is but one of numerous areas where psychologists are directly aiding military and intelligence operations, an area known as operational psychology. The ethical issues posed by the larger field of operational psychology have received little public discussion apart from apologia by operational psychologists themselves. To stimulate public review of operational psychology, leaders of the movement to remove psychologists from national security interrogations convened, in September 2015, a group of experts to work towards a consensus set of principles to guide future discussion. Participants included psychologists, physicians, and social scientists; military and intelligence professionals; and attorneys, ethicists, and human rights advocates. The discussion also drew upon years of dialogue between participants and military health and intelligence professionals. The workshop produced 'The Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology,' with implications for the profession of psychology and for civil society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]