The American Psychological Association approved a resolution on Friday to bar its members from involvement in national-security interrogations, a move meant to resolve a longstanding controversy over the role of psychologists in the harsh questioning of terrorism suspects.
The measure was triggered by a recent report that found that some of the group’s leaders had colluded with the Pentagon to tweak the APA’s ethics guidelines to allow psychologists to play a role in brutal interrogations at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other American detention facilities. The report, written by David H. Hoffman, a former federal prosecutor, led to the departure of several staff members and a great deal of soul searching during the group’s annual conference, which started here on Thursday.
The resolution states in part that “psychologists shall not conduct, supervise, be in the presence of, or otherwise assist any national-security interrogations for any military or intelligence agencies, including private contractors working on their behalf, nor advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation.”
In addition to approving the measure, the APA’s Council of Representatives adopted a plan to set up a panel of ethics experts to make recommendations on how to improve the association’s procedures and structure.
While a lively debate preceded the vote, the council overwhelming approved the change. Of the 173-member governing body, only one voted against the policy shift.
After the motion passed by a roll-call vote, the conference hall erupted in cheers and applause. Supporters of the new policy, some of whom wore black sashes that read “Hold the APA Accountable” and red buttons that said “Do No Harm,” hugged one another. A few held back tears.
‘An Extraordinary Victory’
One of the most jubilant was Steven Reisner, a member of the council who has long challenged the group to adopt stronger policies against interrogations. He called the measure an important step for the association to recover from what he has described as the worst medical scandal since the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
“Right now this is an extraordinary victory because these prohibitions are clear, they’re implementable, people will be held accountable,” he said. “I’m hoping the American Psychological Association will return from leading us into the dark side to leading us out of it.”
He argued, however, that the association had more to do to salvage its reputation and help psychology regain the public trust. “The public should be skeptical and should challenge us,” he said.
The lone no vote on the measure was cast by Larry C. James, an administrator at Wright State University, in Ohio, and a former Army psychologist who worked at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. (Some members of the council said Mr. James was supposed to have recused himself from the vote because he is named in the Hoffman report.)
Mr. James has objected to the report, saying it distorts the facts. During the debate over the measure, he raised concerns about the “unintended consequences” of a ban. For example, he said it may hamper psychologists who work for the federal government by making them ethically bound to follow international laws on torture instead of U.S law.
After the vote, he declined to talk with The Chronicle about his objections. “No, I’m not giving any press interviews,” he said as he walked out of the room.
Ian Wilhelm edits coverage of international issues and other topics. Follow him on Twitter @ianwilhelm, or email him at ian.wilhelm@chronicle.com.
