Search

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF), the focus of the January 2011 special issue of the American Psychologist, is a $125 million resilience training initiative designed to reduce and prevent the adverse psychological consequences of combat for soldiers and veterans. These are worthy goals. Soldiers and veterans deserve the best care possible, and military psychologists have critically important roles to play. But the special issue is troubling in several important respects. Elsewhere, we have offered a detailed review (Eidelson, Pilisuk, & Soldz, 2011). Here we offer only a summary of our concerns. The CSF program is a massive research project launched without pilot testing to determine, first, the effectiveness of the training in a military environment. This is highly irregular and obviously worrisome considering the stakes. No evidence was provided indicating that CSF received preliminary review by an independent ethics review board. There are other ethically fraught possibilities.This special issue reveals much about current moral challenges facing the profession of psychology.

The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA's long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights.

The 2015 Brookline Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop aimed to advance public and professional deliberation regarding challenges and controversies associated with the ethical practice of operational psychology. In his initial critique, Staal (2018a) criticized our meeting on methodological and ideological grounds and condemned the resulting Brookline Principles (Soldz, Arrigo, & Olson, 2016; Soldz, Olson, & Arrigo, 2017). In an earlier response (Soldz, Arrigo, Frakt, & Olson, 2018), we argued that Staal and his colleagues have failed to adequately address legitimate concerns related to traditional civil-military relations and the social contract of the professions--both essential to broader issues of democratic process. Staal responded by largely ignoring the issues we raised. In this second response, we rebut Staal's critiques and again call on him and operational psychology colleagues to address central issues regarding the ethics of operational psychology practice. [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]

The paper consists of the online discussion of Nancy Hollander's ‘Psyche, Ideology, and the Creation of the Political Subject’, summarized. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors commend Costanzo, Gerrity, and Lykes (2007) and their cogent summary of a number of ethical and scientific considerations relevant to evaluating the proper role of psychologists in national security interrogations of so-called “enemy combatants.” From their careful analysis they derive a series of recommendations for the American Psychological Association (APA) and other psychology-related associations, all of which are quite powerful. While supporting these recommendations, the authors also argue that the logic and evidence presented by Costanzo et al. imply, in current legal, political, and organizational circumstances, that psychologists should play no role in the interrogations process. The authors propose that a “bright line” should separate the profession of psychology completely from national security interrogations. The argument is based partly upon ethical considerations, on the practical knowledge available for documenting psychologist participation in interrogations as members of the so-called Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs) at Guantánamo, evidence from other locations and sources, and equally upon the social psychological research regarding the interrogation process so adroitly summarized by Costanzo et al. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper consists of a discussion of Neil Altman's ‘Psychoanalysis and war’, which was conducted online through PsyBC in the fall of 2006. Discussants were a group of psychoanalytically oriented thinkers chosen by the author and Nancy Hollander, the author of the other paper included in the discussion. The paper represents the full discussion with only minor edits to correct typographical errors and improve clarity. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the psychological aspects of the abuses committed by U.S. reservist military police (MPs) against prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in relation to the dynamics of military occupation. It explains a theory of what actually happened at the prison based on newspaper articles and other accounts of abuse throughout U.S. detentions in Iraq. It examines several under emphasized aspects of the war and occupation that contributed to the pervasiveness of the abuse.

In the article, the authors discuss the importance of psychology to both advance and prevent the causes of peace, social justice, human rights and ecological sustainability. They cite the various problems that demand the use of responsible psychology including multiple wars, social and economic inequality and insufficient access to health care. They report that such issues were tackled during the conference of the Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) in Brookline, Massachusetts in the summer of 2010.