Last month, a proposal to establish a US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Center for Excellence in Operational Neuroscience at Yale University died a not-so-quiet death. The broad goal of “operational neuroscience” is to use research on the human brain and nervous system to protect and give tactical advantage to U.S. warfighters in the field. Crucial questions remain unanswered about the proposed center’s mission and the unusual circumstances surrounding its demise. But just as importantly, this episode brings much needed attention to the morally fraught and murky terrain where partnerships between university researchers and national security agencies lie.

A Brief Chronology 

Let’s start with what transpired, according to the news reports and official press releases. In late January, the Yale Herald reported that the Department of Defense had awarded $1.8 million to Yale University’s School of Medicine for the creation of the new center under the direction of Yale psychiatrist Charles Morgan III. Descriptions of the proposed center’s work revolved around the teaching of Morgan’s interviewing techniques to U.S. Special Forces in order to improve their intelligence gathering. To heighten the soldiers’ cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity, Morgan reportedly intended to draw volunteer interviewees from New Haven’s immigrant communities.

Such details typically become public only after a university center has been formally established and its funding officially secured. In this case, however, the early news reports — which included statements from director-to-be Morgan — quickly led last month to a widely circulated Yale Daily News op-ed, an online petition, a Facebook page, and protests by students and local groups outraged over reports of Yale’s support for the military center and plans to treat immigrants as “guinea pigs.” According to ABC News/Univision, in response Morgan explained that he was approached by the Defense Department to help “promote better relations between U.S. troops and the people whose villages they work in and around” — by teaching soldiers “better communication skills” and “how to ask non-leading questions, how to listen to what people are saying, how to understand them.”

A public affairs officer for U.S. SOCOM initially confirmed that it was providing funding for the center. Shortly thereafter, Yale University representatives issued a conflicting statement. Characterizing the center as “an educational and research center with a goal of promoting humane and culturally respectful interview practices among a limited number of members of the armed forces, including medics,” they emphasized that no formal proposal had been submitted for academic and ethical review. Yale also noted that volunteer interviewees “selected from diverse ethnic groups” would be protected by university oversight, and that public reports about the center were in part “based on speculation and incomplete information.” Three days later, SOCOM’s spokesperson retracted his previous statement, explaining that the information provided had been incorrect, and that no funds for the center would be forthcoming. Yale confirmed that the center would not be established at the university. Two days later, SOCOM declared that, in fact, they had decided a year earlier not to fund Morgan’s proposal.

Ethical Risks of Operational Neuroscience

The name of the proposed center — the U.S. SOCOM Center of Excellence for Operational Neuroscience — deserves more attention and scrutiny than it has received thus far.The burgeoning interdisciplinary field of operational neuroscience — supported by hundreds of millions of dollars from the Department of Defense — is indisputably much larger and much more worrisome from an ethical perspective than the mere teaching of interview techniques and people skills would suggest. What makes this particular domain of scientific work so controversial is not only its explicit purpose of advancing military goals. The methods by which these ends are pursued are equally disquieting because they raise the specter of “mind control” and threaten our deeply held convictions about personhood and personal autonomy.

In a presentation to the intelligence community five years ago, program manager Amy Kruse from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) identified operational neuroscience as DARPA’s latest significant accomplishment, preceded by milestone projects that included the Stealth Fighter, ARPANET, the GPS, and the Predator drone. National security interests in operational neuroscience encompass non-invasive, non-contact approaches for interacting with a person’s central and peripheral nervous systems; the use of sophisticated narratives to influence the neural mechanisms responsible for generating and maintaining collective action; applications of biotechnology to degrade enemy performance and artificially overwhelm cognitive capabilities; remote control of brain activity using ultrasound; indicators of individual differences in adaptability and resilience in extreme environments; the effects of sleep deprivation on performance and circadian rhythms; and neurophysiologic methods for measuring stress during military survival training.

Anthropologist Hugh Gusterson, bioethicist Jonathan Moreno, and other outspoken scholars have offered strong warnings about potential perils associated with the “militarization of neuroscience” and the proliferation of “neuroweapons.” Comparing the circumstances facing neuroscientists today with those faced by nuclear scientists during World War II, Gusterson has written, “We’ve seen this story before: The Pentagon takes an interest in a rapidly changing area of scientific knowledge, and the world is forever changed. And not for the better.” Neuroscientist Curtis Bell has called for colleagues to pledge that they will refrain from any research that applies neuroscience in ways that violate international law or human rights; he cites aggressive war and coercive interrogation methods as two examples.

Research Misapplied: SERE and “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”

Some may argue that these concerns are overblown, but the risks associated with “dual use” research are well recognized and well documented. Even though a particular project may be designed to pursue outcomes that society recognizes as beneficial and worthy, the technologies or discoveries may still be susceptible to distressing misuse. As a government request for public comment recently highlighted, certain types of research conducted for legitimate purposes “can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety”.”

Yale’s Morgan must surely be aware that operational neuroscience research can be used for purposes contrary to its purported intent — as this appears to be what happened with some of his own work. Morgan’s biographical sketch on the School of Medicine website refers to his research on the “psycho-neurobiology of resilience in elite soldiers” and “human performance under conditions of high stress.” Both of these topics are related to his extensive study of the effects of the military’s physically and psychologically grueling Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training program. In SERE training, soldiers are subjected to extreme conditions in order to inoculate them against enemy interrogation should they be captured and subjected to torture by forces that don’t observe international laws prohibiting prisoner abuse. The techniques applied during the trainee’s simulated incarceration and mock interrogations include isolation, stress positions, sleep and food deprivation, loud noises, sexual humiliation, extreme temperatures, confinement in small spaces, and in some cases waterboarding.

Along with colleagues, Morgan has published a series of research articles examining the psychological, physiological, and biological effects of the SERE program. In summarizing key findings of this research, Morgan and his co-authors highlighted the following: the stress induced by SERE is within the range of real-world stress; SERE students recover normally and do not show negative effects from the training; and the mock interrogations do not produce lasting adverse reactions as measured by physiological and biological indicators. However, after reviewing these same studies, the authors of a Physicians for Human Rights report reached a starkly different conclusion: “SERE ” techniques, even when used in limited and controlled settings, produce harmful health effects on consenting soldier-subjects exposed to them.” They also emphasized that during the training many students experienced dissociative reactions and hormone level changes comparable to major surgery or actual combat; the post-training assessments were short-term and insufficient to evaluate soldiers for PTSD and related disorders; and the soldiers benefited from knowing that they could end their participation whenever they chose to do so. 

SERE research like that conducted by Morgan and his colleagues was subsequently misused by the Bush Administration after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to illegitimately authorize the abuse and torture of national security detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Air Base, and CIA “black sites.” The infamous “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) were developed by former SERE psychologists — working for the CIA — who “reverse-engineered” the SERE interrogation tactics. But even more importantly here, a crucial 2002 Office of Legal Counsel “torture memo” asserted that the EITs did not cause lasting psychological harm, and it cited as evidence consultation with interrogation experts and outside psychologists, as well as a review of the “relevant literature” — which plausibly would have included Morgan’s own extensive work in the area. In short, this appears to be a striking and tragic instance where operational neuroscience research, undertaken in a different context, was subsequently appropriated and misapplied for unconscionable purposes. It is worth adding that these prisoners were subjected to indefinite detention without trial and they were not free to discontinue their torturous interrogations at will. Their torture sessions were also substantially longer and the techniques were instituted more frequently and with greater intensity than Morgan’s research subjects experienced.

Morgan’s Deception Detection Research

Another significant area of operational neuroscience research for Morgan has been deception detection — that is, figuring out when someone isn’t being truthful during an interview, or an interrogation. According to his online CV, he has received Department of Defense funding totaling nearly $2 million for this work over the past several years. Research on this same topic reportedly also became an important focus of attention for several intelligence agencies — including the CIA — immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Befitting his expertise and stature in the field, Morgan has been involved in a variety of high-level initiatives designed to bring together university researchers and personnel from the defense and intelligence sectors.

For example, Morgan is among the listed attendees at a July 2003 invitation-only workshop on “The Science of Deception: Integration of Theory and Practice.” The event was co-hosted by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the RAND Corporation, with generous funding from the CIA. The participants discussed various scenarios, including one focused on law enforcement interrogation and debriefing, and another on intelligence gathering. They also explored specific research questions, such as which pharmacological agents affect truth-telling, and whether it might be possible to overwhelm a person’s senses so as to reduce his capacity to engage in deception during an interrogation. Psychologist Jeffrey Kaye has noted that, in a very unusual step, the APA has scrubbed most of the information about this workshop from its website.

In June 2004 Morgan was a participant at another invitation-only workshop — co-sponsored by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the APA — titled “The Nature and Influence of Intuition in Law Enforcement: Integration of Theory and Practice.” Among the topics examined were the extent to which police officers, intelligence analysts, interrogators, and others can effectively use “intuition” in their work — for instance, in order to detect deception — and how such capabilities might be applied to counterterrorism efforts. The proceedings from this event identify Morgan as “Senior Research Scientist, Behavioral Science Staff ,  Central Intelligence Agency” — a professional affiliation that does not appear on his online CV.

Morgan is credited with a similar affiliation in the 2006 report “Educing Information,” published by the National Defense Intelligence College. As a member of the Government Experts Committee, Morgan is listed as working for the “Intelligence Technology Innovation Center,” an administrative unit that falls under the CIA. The foreword to the report describes the volume as “a primer on the “science and art’ of both interrogation and intelligence gathering.” Included is a chapter on deception detection by Morgan’s close research colleague, psychologist Gary Hazlett. One of Hazlett’s recommendations in the report is that “the United States adopt an aggressive, focused plan to support research and development of enhanced capabilities to validate information and the veracity of sources.” He also notes that the most troubling limitation of deception research thus far is the lack of “various Asian, Middle Eastern, Central and South American, or African populations” as research participants.

Responding to Morgan’s reported plans for a new center at Yale, local advocacy group Junta for Progressive Action issued a statement of concern last month. It noted that, “As a city that has worked to establish itself as a welcoming and inclusive city for immigrants, the idea of targeting immigrants specifically for the purpose of identifying the distinction of how they lie is offensive, disrespectful and out of line with the values of New Haven.” In a recent newspaper report, Morgan called rumors that the proposed center at Yale would teach new interrogation techniques mere “hype and fantasy,” explaining that he instead “suggested to the Army that perhaps some training in people skills — how to talk to and listen to people might be helpful and create better relations.” Even assuming that this reassuring account is true, it’s certainly not unreasonable to question whether deception detection research and training might have been part of the proposed center’s future operational neuroscience agenda.

Classified and Unclassified Research on Campus

There are broader questions beyond those focused specifically on the uncertain details and background surrounding the not-to-be Center of Excellence for Operational Neuroscience at Yale. The unusual sequence of events that unfolded in New Haven last month should ideally serve as a springboard for open discussion of the opportunities and pitfalls associated with research partnerships between universities and national security agencies. To its credit, Yale University has a clear  policy that explicitly prohibits its faculty from conducting secret or classified research:

“The University does not conduct or permit its faculty to conduct secret or classified research. This policy arises from concern about the impact of such restrictions on two of the University’s essential purposes: to impart knowledge and to enlarge humanity’s store of knowledge. Both are clearly inhibited when open publication, free discussion, or access to research are limited.”

But not all academic institutions have such stringent rules, which are necessary to promote full transparency, informed critiques by other scholars and researchers, and constructive engagement beyond the walls of higher education institutions. At the same time, it should be noted that, even at Yale, voluntary faculty members – Morgan’s official status at the university – do not need to disclose research activities that are not being conducted on behalf of Yale.

Some of the most challenging ethical issues remain even when classified research is not conducted on university campuses. As psychologist Stephen Soldz has highlighted, in cases of unclassified research funded by national security agencies, the academic researchers are not necessarily informed about the totality of the projects to which they are contributing. He offers the example of findings from seemingly uncontroversial deception detection studies, which may ultimately become the basis for the capture, indefinite detention, and torturous interrogation of prisoners in undisclosed locations — well beyond the university researchers’ awareness. Soldz also warns that researchers may never know if their campus work has become “part of a vast secret effort to unlock the mystery of mind control and develop techniques for coercive interrogations, as happened to hundreds of behavioral scientists and others in the decades of the CIA’s MKULTRA and other Cold War behavioral science initiatives.” These risks are further exacerbated for psychologists, psychiatrists, and other health professionals for whom a “do no harm” ethic intrinsically poses conflicts with research projects aimed at identifying and destroying those who are considered adversaries.

Next Steps

There are applications of operational neuroscience — such as improved prosthetic limbs for injured veterans and more effective treatments for victims of brain injury — that are compelling in their apparent value and their promotion of human welfare. But other applications raise profound concerns, especially where the defining goals and priorities of a university and its medical researchers and scientists diverge from those of national security and intelligence operatives. Community health sciences professor Michael Siegel — a graduate of Yale’s School of Medicine — emphasized this point when he was interviewed on Democracy Now! last month. Siegel noted: “The practice of medicine was designed to improve people’s health, and the school of medicine should not be taking part in either training or research that is primarily designed to enhance military objectives.”

In this context it’s worthwhile to recall exactly who Morgan envisioned as the trainees for his proposed “people skills” interview project at the medical school: U.S. Special Forces, the highly skilled soldiers often assigned the military’s most difficult and dangerous missions. These forces – over 60,000 strong including military personnel and civilians — are now covertly deployed around the globe. Journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin have described them as “America’s secret army.” Their counterterrorism operations include intelligence-gathering missions and lethal raids — not only in Afghanistan but also in countries where the United States is not at war. They’ve been authorized to keep “kill lists” of individuals who can be assassinated rather than captured, and some have conducted brutal interrogations at secret detention sites. The Army refers to its Special Forces as the “most specialized experts in unconventional warfare.”

At this point, signs clearly indicate that a U.S. SOCOM Center of Excellence for Operational Neuroscience will not be coming to Yale. But it would be a mistake to assume that this research — and the very considerable national security sector funding it attracts — will not find another home. This is why it’s important that the current controversy not be dismissed without fuller engagement and discussion among all stakeholders of pressing practical and ethical considerations — before a similar project appears on another campus or resurfaces in a reconfigured form in New Haven. The prospect of all defense-related neuroscience research being conducted clandestinely by government or corporate entities — away from the public and expert oversight that universities can offer — is far from reassuring, so difficult issues like this must be tackled head-on.

One valuable next step would be an open forum at Yale. Dr. Morgan could have the opportunity to describe in greater detail the nature of his deception detection work and related projects — including his ongoing research in New Haven about which Yale recently claimed it was unaware. Other distinguished scientists, ethicists, and human rights experts could provide their commentaries. And community members, students, faculty, and administrators could offer their own perspectives and pose questions. Such an event would not likely produce consensus, but the sharing of information, the free expression of differing viewpoints, and informed debate are among the most vital functions of a university. Pending further developments, there are very good reasons to be concerned — and confused — about the recent twists and turns surrounding the proposed center at Yale. Many of the most critical questions still await answers.

The controversy continues regarding retired military psychologist Larry James, who is seeking an executive director position in the College of Education at the University of Missouri. As one of two finalists for the position, last week James participated in a public forum at the university. Many of the questions following his formal presentation were about his work a decade ago at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba, where hundreds of men and boys from Afghanistan and elsewhere were imprisoned and interrogated as part of the U.S. “war on terror.”

James avoided answering several of these probing questions posed to him at the event. For example, he didn’t address concerns about the sexist and homophobic descriptions in his book Fixing Hell, and he chose not to clarify whether he knew that he was violating international conventions against torture when he participated in the “disappearing” of three Afghan juveniles. But in responding more fully to other questions, James did make claims that merit much closer examination.

First, consider James’ account of the ethics complaints filed against him. At last week’s forum he claimed that he was fully exonerated by the state boards of Louisiana and Ohio. James told the audience that the Louisiana board “investigated these allegations thoroughly and dismissed them.” And describing the Ohio complaint, he said that it was “reviewed, investigated, thrown out.” But these are at best highly idiosyncratic and biased interpretations of the actual events. In Louisiana, the state board simply refused to conduct an investigation. And in Ohio, the board offered no explanation in deciding that it was “unable to proceed to formal action.”

These rulings are far from compelling evidence of innocence. James is undoubtedly familiar with the ethics complaint filed in Texas in 2010 against the CIA contract psychologist who designed and implemented the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 torturous “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding. Despite thousands of pages of documentation and sworn testimony, the Texas board nevertheless dismissed this case, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to prove that any violation had occurred. Last week James noted that CIA contract psychologists had preceded him at Guantanamo and “did some diabolical things” while there, and in his book he explains that their abusive tactics were exactly what needed “fixing.” So although he doesn’t acknowledge it, James very well knows — as we all should know — that when it comes to “war on terror” psychologists, serious wrongdoing does not necessarily lead to censure by state licensing boards.

Second, several of James’ responses to questions about his actions and his responsibilities were seemingly inconsistent — both with each other and with what he’s written in Fixing Hell. For instance, in his book James describes how, when he first saw the photos from Abu Ghraib — of naked inmates piled on top of each other and other disturbing images — he thought , “What dumbass psychologist at the prison let this happen? Didn’t he read the standard operating procedure I wrote at Gitmo?” Guantanamo’s 2003 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) did not authorize abuses as horrific as some of those uncovered at Abu Ghraib. But the manual did mandate an initial four weeks of extended isolation — known to cause severe mental pain and suffering — in order to “enhance and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee.” When an audience member at last week’s forum asked James if he had been involved in the drafting of these SOPs, James said, ” I had nothing to do with those.” He went on to explain that the SOPs he wrote dealt only with “mundane day-to-day issues” like “what uniforms we wear.” If these minor matters were indeed the basis of the regulations that James drafted while the Chief Psychologist of the Joint Intelligence Group at Guantanamo, how could he imagine that they would have prevented the Abu Ghraib atrocities?

Third, and most disturbingly for human rights advocates and those concerned about psychological ethics, consider this self-congratulatory statement from James at the forum: “The work that I did literally changed and outlawed all of these abusive interrogation tactics. So had I not gone to Guantanamo, I often wonder what would have happened.” This statement is very similar to the claim he makes in his book: “There also have been no incidents of abuse at Guantanamo Bay by either an interrogator or psychologist reported since my arrival in Cuba in January 2003.” Yet again, the evidence offers little support for James’ misleading recordkeeping, unless he’s interpreting abuse in a way that drains it of all meaning. For instance, in Fixing Hell James recounts pouring himself a cup of coffee and watching an interrogation session in which four men had wrestled a naked detainee to the floor, had already put pink panties, lipstick, and a wig on the detainee, and were now trying to force him into a matching pink nightgown. Obviously this occurred while James was at Guantanamo — he watched it happen. Does it fall short of his threshold for what constitutes abuse? Or does it not count as abuse simply because he did not report it?

But we need not rely solely on James’ own account for evidence contradicting his boastful claims about an abuse-free Guantanamo. Just a few months after James departed, in an October 2003 memorandum the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) raised serious concerns about detainee isolation and caged cells. Even more telling, after a June 2004 inspection, the ICRC described a system “tantamount to torture” with detainees subjected to solitary confinement, humiliating acts, prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, forced stress positions, exposure to loud and persistent noise, and some beatings. Indeed the ICRC inspectors reached this overall conclusion: “The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture.” That assessment was made just a year after James had completed his supposedly transformative stint at Guantanamo. Of course, in his book James dismisses representatives of the ICRC as “a bunch of radical left do-gooders”who were as interested in giving America a black eye as they were in truly helping the innocent.”

Matters are illuminated even further by comparing the Army’s official 2003 and 2004 SOP manuals for the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. Bear in mind that throughout this period (and thereafter) Behavioral Science Consultation Team psychologists like James held key consultative roles in regard to both the detention conditions and interrogation procedures at Guantanamo. Despite the non-specific improvements for which James gives himself credit, the comparison of SOPs during and after his Guantanamo deployment offers little to cheer about. For example, both SOPs referenced the routine use of extended isolation, including for four weeks after a new detainee’s arrival. Both SOPs employed military working dogs for “psychological deterrence.” In both SOPs toilet paper was listed as a “privilege,” with a full roll described as a “special reward.” And both SOPs barred the Red Cross from access to some detainees.

Finally, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s redacted 2008 report on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody includes well over 100 pages focused specifically on Guantanamo, and several pages describe events that reportedly occurred during James’ deployment there in the first half of 2003. Allegations of abuse included interrogation personnel and military police subjecting detainees to “forced physical training;” a female interrogator sitting on a detainee’s lap “making sexual affiliated movements with her chest and pelvis while again speaking sexually oriented sentences;” and a female interrogator wiping “what she told the detainee was menstrual blood on a detainee’s face and forehead.” Another memo concluded that “the incidents occurring during the Spring of 2003 signif[ied] a consistent problem at GTMO.” And other documents at that time indicate that “in addition to the use of strobe lights and loud music, techniques such as forced shaving, sensory deprivation and even implied threats of death were either used or planned for use.” In sum, evidence contradicting James’ assurance that there were “no incidents of abuse” is overwhelming.

Moving forward, one hopes that all stakeholders will carefully review the claims that Larry James has made, including those described here. It has long been said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. Certainly this applies to the consequential decision facing the search committee at the University of Missouri in the weeks immediately ahead. It’s to be expected that job applicants will present their experiences and credentials in the most positive light they can. But sometimes the darkness seems inescapable. 

For all of the wrong reasons, torture has been in the national news this past week. First, President Obama nominated John Brennan as the new director of the CIA, a man who embraced and defended the Bush Administration’s use of torturous “enhanced interrogation techniques” (before joining the current White House and becoming a leading advocate for drones and extrajudicial assassinations). Second, we observed the eleventh anniversary of the opening of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where over 100 of the men and boys brought there as part of our “war on terror” still remain — abused and indefinitely detained without trial in the military prison despised around the world. And third, the controversial hunt-for-Bin Laden film “Zero Dark Thirty”, which promotes the view that torture produced valuable intelligence, received multiple Academy Award nominations and was #1 at the box office last weekend.

Away from the national spotlight, in Columbia, Missouri — home of the University of Missouri — a related story is also unfolding this month. According to recent local news reports in the Columbia Missourian and the Columbia Daily Tribune, one of the two finalists in the job search for division executive director at the university’s College of Education is Dr. Larry James. What’s of particular note about James is that he’s a retired Army colonel and military psychologist who held positions of authority during stints at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Guantanamo.

James provides his own account of these experiences in his self-congratulatory memoir titled Fixing Hell (which includes troubling descriptions of captured Afghan juveniles as “flat-out dumber than a bag of rocks” and of a female U.S. soldier as a ” short, fat, seriously ugly young lady”). But his involvement in the detention and interrogation of prisoners has also been the focus of multiple professional ethics complaints, both to state licensing boards and to the American Psychological Association (APA). Evidence against James seems credible and compelling. Consider a few summary paragraphs from the well-documented complaint filed in 2010 with the Ohio Board of Psychology (by a psychologist colleague of mine and three others):

In 2003 and from 2007-2008, Dr. James was a U.S. Army Colonel who served as Chief Psychologist for the intelligence command at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. As outlined in the attached Statement of the Complaint, credible evidence indicates that in that position, Dr. James played an integral role in the system of abusive interrogation and detention used to exploit prisoners’ mental and physical vulnerabilities, maximize their feelings of disorientation and helplessness, and render them dependent upon their interrogators. These detainees included minors in Dr. James’s custody and care.

Dr. James was a senior member — we believe the commanding officer — of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT), a small but influential group of mental health professionals that advised on interrogation plans, monitored interrogations, and worked with detention operations to create an environment designed to break down prisoners.

During Dr. James’s tenure as the senior intelligence psychologist in Guantánamo, boys and men were threatened with rape and death for themselves and their family members; sexually, culturally, and religiously humiliated; forced naked; deprived of sleep; subjected to sensory deprivation, over-stimulation, and extreme isolation; short-shackled into stress positions for hours; and physically assaulted. The evidence indicates that abuse of this kind was systemic, that BSCT health professionals played an integral role in its planning and practice, and that Dr. James, as the Chief Psychologist of the intelligence command, at minimum knew or should have known it was being inflicted.

With a primary injunction against doing harm, it’s hard to make a persuasive case that the APA Ethics Code is silent on these matters. And yet the state boards in Ohio and Louisiana have dismissed the complaints against James without careful review and investigation of the charges, and without meaningful comment. And the APA’s own ethics committee apparently reached the same decision in 2007. In describing that outcome in correspondence last fall, the current past president of the APA wrote, “After a review of the allegations, it was determined that no action against”Dr. Larry James was warranted.” Two years later, in 2009, the APA Board described the Association’s position this way: ” no psychologist involved in detainee abuse should escape accountability.” In trying to decipher the meaning of “accountability” here, some might wonder whether the APA has fallen into Alice’s Wonderland, where Humpty Dumpty explained, “When I use a word”it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Others may be reminded of these words of George Orwell: ” The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.”

James has many influential supporters within the APA. In 2005 he was appointed, ironically, to the APA’s Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. After a single weekend meeting this group asserted that psychologists play a valuable role in making sure that national security detention and interrogation operations are safe, legal, ethical, and effective. In the acknowledgments for his book, James personally thanks two past presidents of the APA, the APA’s president-elect, and the director of the APA’s Ethics Office for supporting him when he ” faced many bitter, diabolical, unfounded, and misguided threats upon my person from fellow psychologists.” And just this month James began his term representing the Society for Military Psychology on APA’s governing council. It was at a meeting of this very council back in 2006 where, according to James’ own account, he ” confronted one of my critics and threatened to shut his mouth for him if he didn’t do it himself.”

Meanwhile, the search committee at the University of Missouri plans to make its hiring recommendation sometime next month. Some faculty at the College of Education are reportedly concerned by the prospect of having Dr. James as their executive director. It’s not hard to understand why.

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, written nearly 200 years ago, a young scientist brings to life a hideous monster made of body parts collected from slaughterhouses, dissecting rooms, and graveyards. Dr. Frankenstein is immediately horrified and sickened by what he has created, and he abandons the creature. Alone and shunned by society, the monster later returns and pleads with the doctor to create a mate for him. The remorseful Dr. Frankenstein hesitantly consents, but he stops his work when moral qualms and fears of unknown consequences intercede. Vengeful and enraged, the monster returns again and murders the doctor’s new bride on their wedding night. Dr. Frankenstein vows to spend his remaining years tracking down and killing his grotesque creation, but he himself dies before achieving this final goal.

Sadly, there is no shortage of arenas where the tale of Frankenstein — of science unmoored from values, of ambition unrestrained by conscience — resonates powerfully today. One that stands out for many psychologists is the American Psychological Association’s (APA) ongoing, decade-long embrace of “war on terror” opportunities that have placed U.S. psychologists at the center of coercive interrogations and other human rights abuses.

After the attacks of 9/11, moral leadership and clarity of ethical convictions were sorely needed — in the world, in our government and military, and in the profession of psychology. But rather than taking a firm stand in defense of psychological ethics, at key moments APA leaders have chosen to create one monster after another, in the form of policies that support the misuse of psychology by the Department of Defense and the CIA. Into Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory they have gone time and again. The APA’s monstrosities are not eight-feet tall and made of discarded body parts. But they are undeniably grotesque, and they are assuredly larger than life when measured by the devastation they have caused. Consider these five examples, in chronological order.

********

Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil, as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave, or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay? My limbs now tremble and my eyes swim with the remembrance; but then a resistless, and almost frantic, impulse urged me forward; I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit. (Frankenstein, Chapter 4)

********

Monstrosity I

The APA adopted a revised ethics code in 2002, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Although the revision process was underway before the Bush administration’s “war on terror” had commenced, the APA’s leadership was certainly aware of — and seemingly untroubled by — Vice President Cheney’s ominous warning to a national television audience:

“We also have to work” the dark side, if you will. We’ve got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies”.That’s the world these folks operate in, and so it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.” (Meet the Press, 9/16/01)

With input from psychologists in the fields of national security and intelligence operations, the 2002 APA Ethics Code included two changes welcomed by those who embraced the “dark side.” First, changes were made to provide psychologists with the “just following orders” Nuremberg Defense, so that they could claim exemption from professional accountability if “law, regulations, or other governing authority” permitted them to act against the foundational principles of psychological ethics. Second, other changes to the code loosened the ethical requirements surrounding research. Researchers were freed to more readily bypass informed consent from participants, and they were permitted to use deception unless the research would reasonably be expected to cause “physical pain or severe emotional distress.” These revisions were the basis for psychologist involvement in gruesome interrogations and odious experiments on detainees. They became abominations that drained much of the ethical lifeblood from the profession of psychology.

********

With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs. (Frankenstein, Chapter 5)

********

Monstrosity II

Before the APA’s ethics code revision had even been officially adopted in the summer of 2002, psychologists were at work creating and unleashing a second monstrosity: a set of grisly detention and interrogation procedures designed to disorient, debilitate, and degrade their prisoners. Relying on the principles of learned helplessness, psychologists were among the foremost developers and purveyors of the torture regimen. Rather than trying to imbue the spark of life — Dr. Frankenstein’s misguided ambition — “war on terror” psychologists used their laboratories to devise fiendish ways to wrest all dignity and humanity from their unwilling victims: forced nakedness, diapering, hooding and other forms of sensory deprivation, temperature extremes, shackling to ceilings and floors, confinement in dark boxes, intimidation by dogs, sexual humiliation, sensory bombardment, sleep deprivation, exploitation of phobias, death threats, and asphyxiation with the waterboard.  

At the same time, APA and its leaders co-sponsored and participated in invitation-only conferences and high-level meetings with the CIA, the FBI, and White House officials. A key focus involved positioning organized psychology to advance the Bush administration’s agenda, through psychological research on detecting deception and related topics. Meanwhile, the psychologists’ participation in detention and interrogation operations was institutionalized through the Defense Department’s creation of Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs). Official records show that team members offered their psychological guidance in efficiently breaking down the prisoners and effectively adjusting their experience of pain, fear, and anguish. The Defense Department’s description of these activities was very different: by their account, the participation of psychologists helped to keep detention and interrogation operations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective.” APA readily adopted that mantra. 

********

I started from my sleep with horror; a cold dew covered my forehead, my teeth chattered, and every limb became convulsed: when, by the dim and yellow light of the moon, as it forced its way through the window shutters, I beheld the wretch — the miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixed on me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped, and rushed down stairs. (Frankenstein, Chapter 5)

********

Monstrosity III

In 2004, the photos from Abu Ghraib and journalists’ revelations of torture at Guantanamo provided the public — and many psychologists — with the first glimpse of the horrors that the “war on terror” had let loose: the furtive trampling of basic human rights, international law, and founding principles of U.S. democracy. Now faced with the flames of growing controversy, APA leaders brought forth yet another monstrosity to defend their highly prized turf. With guidance from the military-intelligence community, the APA created the 2005 Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security, which then produced the PENS Report. The Task Force was comprised predominantly of psychologists on the payroll of U.S. military/intelligence agencies — several of whom served in the very chains of command accused of the abuses the task force was purportedly convened to address. 

High-level APA staff members were present to make sure the blueprint was followed without deviation. Over a three-day period shrouded in secrecy, the PENS Report was brought to life. As planned internally from the very outset, the Report asserted that psychologists indeed play a valuable role in keeping national security interrogations safe, legal, ethical, and effective – just as the Department of Defense had claimed beforehand. Then in an emergency session, the APA’s Board of Directors quickly and officially approved the Report, bypassing a vote by the full Council of Representatives. The key message of the PENS Report was immediately clear to psychologists and interested parties everywhere: our ethics code need not unduly shackle us, we may continue to do the White House’s bidding.

********

At these moments I wept bitterly, and wished that peace would revisit my mind only that I might afford them consolation and happiness. But that could not be. Remorse extinguished every hope. I had been the author of unalterable evils; and I lived in daily fear, lest the monster whom I had created should perpetrate some new wickedness. I had an obscure feeling that all was not over, and that he would still commit some signal crime, which by its enormity should almost efface the recollection of the past. (Frankenstein, Chapter 9)

********

Monstrosity IV 

The PENS Report was understandably greeted by a chorus of criticism from individuals and groups concerned about human rights and psychological ethics. Rather than acknowledging the legitimacy of this harsh denunciation, APA leaders chose to breathe life into another monstrosity: an Orwellian public relations campaign crafted to torture the truth and to feign outrage over accusations of psychologist wrongdoing. APA spokespersons took to their megaphones to proclaim loudly that they would sanction any professional misconduct brought to their attention — but have failed to even adjudicate the detailed and well-documented ethics complaints brought before them. Instead they lauded the courage and unique skills of psychologists engaged in detention and interrogation operations. A representative of the APA’s military psychology division declared that “people are going to die” if psychologists are removed from Guantanamo.

Simultaneously, APA leaders were engaged in a much broader creative enterprise. They worked to construct a persuasive account that would further expand the opportunities available to psychologists in the national security arena. The narrative’s foundation was the PENS Report, which asserted that it is ethical for psychologists to be involved in “war on terror” detention and interrogation operations. Upon that frame were built reinterpretations of the APA Ethics Code that took long-standing ethical principles and ground them to sand. One common refrain was the claim that, at places like Guantanamo, the psychologist’s client is actually the U.S. military (or another security agency), not the prisoner being subjected to harm, coercion, and abuse. Likewise, ethical concerns surrounding informed consent, confidentiality, and exploitation were deemed to be inconsequential whenever they posed obstacles to the mission.

********

Had I right, for my own benefit, to inflict this curse upon everlasting generations? I had before been moved by the sophisms of the being I had created; I had been struck senseless by his fiendish threats: but now, for the first time, the wickedness of my promise burst upon me; I shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race. (Frankenstein, Chapter 20)

********

Monstrosity V

Compounding the damage already done to the ethical landscape of professional psychology, a fifth monstrosity is now being stitched together within the APA. Advance publicity for this creation bills it as a single comprehensive document that will reconcile all APA policies related to national security. Purporting to replace the “outdated” PENS Report, this initiative will actually further institutionalize the disturbing view that psychologists can ethically participate in national security operations that harm, exploit, deceive, and coerce — as long as their actions are not deemed torturous, cruel, inhuman, or degrading. Following in the footsteps of its predecessors, this creation will obstruct the urgent need to engage diverse stakeholders in a broad, independent, and transparent discussion of psychological ethics and national security.

Operational psychologists’ adverse impact on the immediate targets of their interventions; the absence of voluntary informed consent from these individuals; and the lack of oversight from outside organizations — these are issues of profound ethical consequence for the profession. But if successful, the APA’s latest ploy, disguised as a “member-initiated task force,” will submerge these concerns and suffocate attempts to re-establish these basic ethical foundations. All the while, further inroads will be made by those seeking to make operational psychology an increasingly influential and uncontested voice in redefining the principles of psychological ethics.

********

I had begun life with benevolent intentions, and thirsted for the moment when I should put them in practice, and make myself useful to my fellow-beings. Now all was blasted: instead of that serenity of conscience, which allowed me to look back upon the past with self satisfaction, and from thence to gather promise of new hopes, I was seized by remorse and the sense of guilt, which hurried me away to a hell of intense tortures, such as no language can describe. (Frankenstein, Chapter 9)

********

What Next?

Psychological ethics are matters of profound consequence. They exist to ensure that our specialized skills and knowledge are not used in ways that violate the profession’s core principles, its commitment to human welfare, and the public trust upon which we depend. They also serve to bind us together as a community engaged in shared work, while providing moral guidance and collective support for the individual psychologist confronted with difficult decisions or unreasonable demands. Ultimately, psychologists cannot be effective healers, researchers, or teachers without an ethics code that commands respect and accountability.

The fictional Dr. Frankenstein abandoned his profession’s ethical principles. But he grew horrified and remorseful over the choices he had made, and he took steps to curtail the damage for which he was responsible. Thus far APA leaders have followed a very different path. They seem largely oblivious to or untroubled by the harm that their own monstrosities have caused — to targeted victims and to the profession alike. Indeed, their laboratory remains intact and there may be yet another creature stirring on the table. This is deeply regrettable.

The betrayal of psychological ethics by the world’s largest organization of psychologists will not make the world safer — and it certainly will not help dedicated psychologists in their efforts to address the many societal ills that beset us. The question that APA members and others must now urgently ask and answer is this: “How did we ever let loose these hideous monstrosities, and how can we prevent it from happening again?” 

********

Note. Many psychologists and other concerned organizations and individuals — including human rights advocates, health professionals, attorneys, military-intelligence professionals, and ethicists — are working to illuminate these disturbing issues and to press for change. The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology is one of these groups, and more information about the Coalition is available at www.ethicalpsychology.org. Interested readers are encouraged to sign the Coalition’s online petition calling for annulment of the APA’s PENS Report at www.ethicalpsychology.org/pens.

Ten years of continuous war — characterized by multiple deployments, elusive guerilla adversaries, and occupied populations seemingly more tilted toward resentment than gratitude — have taken a significant toll on US troops. In addition to those who have been killed, physically maimed, or neurologically impaired by combat, many soldiers have experienced debilitating psychological disorders including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Large numbers are on antidepressants and other psychotropic medications, while the suicide rate among troops has risen to alarming levels.

The sobering realities of the psychological effects of war pose a serious challenge for the US military tasked with simultaneously fighting multiple wars and anticipating years of “persistent conflict” ahead. The good news is that key sectors within the military have now identified the mental health of our troops as a major issue that must be addressed. Indeed, in addition to treatment for those suffering psychological impairment, the military leadership is pursuing intervention efforts aimed at preventing such adverse outcomes by increasing soldiers’ psychological resilience to combat exposure. The largest of these new initiatives is the Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) program, launched in 2009 and based upon the “positive psychology” framework of psychologist Martin Seligman. And that brings us to the bad news: despite the over-hyped claims of CSF’s leading proponents, at this point there is little evidence to suggest that CSF works.

Since its inception, CSF has been the target of numerous criticisms from psychologists and others, including an article, “The Dark Side of Comprehensive Soldier Fitness,” we co-authored with colleague Marc Pilisuk last year, a series of critical comments published in the October 2011 issue of the American Psychologist, and criticism voiced on PBS NewsHour. Concerns raised by critics span a wide range of significant issues (and led to Congressional inquiries last year): the questionable empirical evidence behind the rapid creation and implementation of CSF; indications that CSF is actually a research study involuntarily imposed upon troops without appropriate protections such as independent ethical review and informed consent; the possibility that CSF may distract attention from addressing the documented adverse effects of multiple and lengthy deployments and high levels of combat exposure; potential negative effects of CSF, common in prevention programs, that have not been carefully considered or monitored; concerns as to whether the “spirituality” component of CSF is inappropriately promoting religion; the insufficient examination of ethical questions posed by efforts to build “indomitable” soldiers; issues concerning the awarding of a $31 million no-bid contract to Seligman’s positive psychology center at the University of Pennsylvania for CSF development; and the seemingly uncritical embrace and promotion of CSF by the American Psychological Association (of which Seligman is a past president).

Recently we identified yet another deeply problematic issue with the CSF program: The research evaluating the program is of questionable quality and it does not support the strong claims being made about CSF’s effectiveness. Most notably, last December CSF researchers released a report, “Report #3: Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Master Resilience Training on Self-Reported Resilience and Psychological Health Data,” purporting to demonstrate that CSF “works.” On the report’s first page, the researchers boldly assert: “There is now sound scientific evidence that Comprehensive Soldier Fitness improves the resilience and psychological health of Soldiers.” And, in a prefatory statement to the report, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli writes: “I and other Army senior leaders are often asked if it [CSF] really works — if it actually makes Soldiers more resilient and psychologically healthier. I believe the answer is yes.”

The Army News Service quickly and broadly disseminated the “news” this way: “The Master Resilience Training aspect of Comprehensive Soldier Fitness is working well. That’s the conclusion of an Army report, released last month, covering a 15-month period of statistical evaluation.” This summary has appeared on dozens of websites, including the official websites of the U.S. Army, the CSF program, the Army National Guard, the U.S. Army magazine Soldiers, and the Fort Hood Sentinel.

Report #3 assesses the Master Resilience Trainer component of CSF. After undergoing an intensive 10-day training course, each newly-minted “Master Resilience Trainer” is placed in an Army unit. Trainers are charged with equipping fellow soldiers with thinking skills and strategies intended to help them more effectively handle the physical and psychological challenges of military life, including, most especially, combat operations.

In our report released last week, “Does Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Work? CSF Research Fails the Test,” we critique Report #3 in detail and identify five major areas of weakness: (1) the researchers’ failure to measure the important outcomes of PTSD, depression, or other psychological disorders despite the availability of validated measures for doing so, (2) a flawed research design that fails to control for important confounding variables, (3) significant problems with the method of data analysis, (4) the researchers’ failure to acknowledge plausible risks of harm from the CSF intervention, and (5) a miscellaneous set of related issues of concern. (While much of our report addresses issues of research design and methodology, we have aimed to make it as accessible as possible to the broader public.)

Based upon our careful analysis of Report #3, we believe that the claims of CSF proponents regarding the program’s effectiveness are vastly inflated. We therefore call upon the Army to retract this report or, at a minimum, issue an unambiguous and widely disseminated statement acknowledging that the report is seriously flawed and that, as a result, the verdict is still out as to whether CSF actually “works.”

In making this recommendation we fully recognize that large-scale evaluation research is an intrinsically difficult undertaking inevitably imperfect in its execution. However, the public that has paid over $100 million for the CSF program and, even more, the one million soldiers who are involuntarily subjected to CSF’s resiliency training deserve much better than the misrepresentations of effectiveness aggressively promoted by Report #3.

Certainly, the psychological health of our nation’s soldiers, and of all citizens, should be a top priority. As a country we must commit ourselves to addressing the alarming rates of PTSD, suicide, and other serious behavioral and emotional difficulties among our troops, especially those repeatedly exposed to the horrors of combat and war. But it is simply wrong at this time to present CSF as part of a solution, because to date there is no solid empirical evidence demonstrating that the program accomplishes any of these lofty goals.

Note : This article draws upon material in our report “Does Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Work? CSF Research Fails the Test.”

– Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll

********

This is a story of four siblings with improbable names: Safe, Legal, Ethical, and Effective. Just as improbably, they all grew up to become psychologists, each with a different area of professional focus. Over many years of independent practice, the four gained considerable recognition for their expertise. Eventually, they joined together to form a high-profile, all-in-one firm in which each sibling’s specialized contributions complemented the others.’

Brother Safe was an expert on risk. Nothing was more important to him than protecting his clients from harm. His siblings speculated that this passion was due to his having been a small, insecure, and fearful child, always lacking in confidence compared to his peers. Regardless, whenever a new psychological treatment began to gain popularity, it was Safe who carefully “read the fine print,” reviewed the potential adverse reactions and side effects, and then recommended whether the siblings should add the approach to their set of interventions. As a result of Safe’s meticulousness, the siblings were renowned for how rarely their clients suffered therapeutic setbacks that left them worse off than when treatment began. This was a source of tremendous comfort for those who sought the firm’s help.

Sister Legal was long considered the smartest of the siblings, and nobody was surprised when she obtained a law degree along with her doctorate in psychology. Growing up, Legal was a nitpicker, and she would worry about even the most trivial rules and infractions in the games the siblings played. Her brothers and sister were often irritated by this obsessiveness. But they also recognized how helpful it was whenever the four of them teamed up against neighbors in friendly competition. As professionals, having a talented attorney in the family business was a real advantage in avoiding potentially costly lawsuits. Legal made sure that the firm was always on the right side of the law. Her consistent recommendation was simple: stay away from the gray areas and keep a sufficient distance from the lines that should never be crossed — that way you can’t accidently stray where you shouldn’t go.

Brother Effective was the youngest of the siblings, and he grew up feeling he wasn’t quite on equal footing with his brother and sisters. His response was to become hyper-competitive, always looking for an advantage wherever he could find one. Later, when Effective became a psychologist, he found his edge by dedicating himself to using only those therapeutic approaches that had the strongest theoretical and empirical support. He spent hours each week poring over the latest research findings and meta-analyses to determine which methods the firm should embrace — and which should be avoided because there was insufficient evidence to support the claims of their overly enthusiastic proponents. As a result, Effective and his siblings were able to consistently report outstanding treatment successes.

Sister Ethical garnered considerable respect from Safe, Legal, and Effective for being the oldest of the four. But throughout their lives they also had found her tiresome, due to her incessant reminders about the importance of “doing the right thing.” During their childhood years, the siblings abandoned many a mischievous plan for entertainment or profit because Ethical’s overbearing lectures were simply too steep a price to pay. Nevertheless, as psychologists they appreciated having a member of the firm with such a reliable and finely honed moral compass. Ethical could always be counted on to discern in advance the potential ethical entanglements in any case. She knew all of the standards, and she was able to cite relevant passages whenever needed, including distinguishing enforceable code sections from those that were merely aspirational. In short, although Ethical wasn’t much fun, the firm’s public recognition as an exemplar of the ethical practice of psychology was a point of pride for all of them.

The siblings’ talents and hard work made their shared practice of psychology enormously successful. All four of them lived very comfortable and rewarding lives, which included the pleasure of working together and offering their unique perspectives on the many challenging cases that routinely came to the firm. The combination of expert insights on matters of safety, legality, ethics, and effectiveness seemed to be a special elixir. They consistently produced clear strategies and policy guidance in a professional world where many of their peers struggled amid competing considerations. By discussing each of their favorite questions — “Is it safe?”, “Is it legal?”, “Is it ethical?”, and “Is it effective?” — the siblings rarely found themselves stumped or uncertain about the best path forward.

But one afternoon everything changed.

Several large men, a few of them in uniform, paid an unexpected visit to the siblings at their downtown DC offices. They quickly dispensed with pleasantries. One of the men spoke in serious and sometimes whispered tones about an immediate, short-term, and highly lucrative consulting opportunity “related to matters of national security.” Even before hearing all of the details, the siblings began discussing which of the four of them could clear their schedules on such short notice. But their conversation was interrupted when one of the men firmly said, “Stop. We need all four of you. If any of you turn down this offer, you won’t hear from us again. I strongly believe you’d regret that. Think of us as the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs. We have a plane waiting for you at the airport.” At that point, he reached into his briefcase and placed four glimmering golden eggs on the conference table. “One for each of you — consider them a down payment.”

Tragically, as it would turn out, all four siblings had a soft spot for golden eggs, authority figures, and special recognition. A few hours later Safe, Legal, Ethical, and Effective were together on the plane, and after a very lengthy trip they arrived at their destination the following evening, without any clear idea of where they actually were. Immediately upon disembarking they were hurried to a warehouse facility where very large men were barking orders to other men almost as large. The siblings felt a strange mixture of fear and pride when the very largest man approached them, extended his hand, and said, “Your country thanks you.” He then led them to a private room with an elaborate video console.

As soon as they were all seated, the man began his brief presentation. “Welcome. I hope your trip was comfortable. What we need from you is really quite simple. I’m sure my colleagues explained on the flight over that, among other responsibilities, we’re in the interrogation business.” After they nodded, he continued. “This work is crucial for our nation’s security, but we recognize it may not be popular with everyone. So our marketing people have developed a slogan for us, one that has tested very well in several focus groups. We want to advertise our interrogations as ‘safe, legal, ethical, and effective.’ It’s going to become a memorable phrase. Our analysts are confident that, with repeated use and mass exposure, it will silence even the most stubborn doubters.”

After a short pause, the very large man resumed. “No doubt you’ve now figured out why we contacted the four of you. We want the famous and much respected psychologists Safe, Legal, Ethical, and Effective to officially endorse our methods. Clever, isn’t it?” He grinned momentarily. “Your stamp of approval will be very useful to us, especially when people question our claims in order to advance their own self-interested agenda. So here’s what we’ve done. We’ve put together a dozen video clips for you to watch, showing the techniques we use to enhance our interrogations here. Whenever you want, you can pause or stop the player, or rewind the video if you want to view it again. Are my instructions clear?” The siblings nodded. “Good. The key is to get this done quickly, so that you can return home and we can launch our marketing campaign. Feel free to talk with each other. And I’ll be back in an hour to get written endorsements from each of you. By the way, we’ll be videotaping everything.”

The very large man stood up and left the room, leaving a guard standing just outside the door. Over the next half-hour, the siblings watched the video clips — in utter disbelief. The first clip showed a naked, hooded prisoner in a small cell; he shivered uncontrollably each time he was doused with buckets of cold water. In the second video, a gaunt prisoner, struggling to maintain his balance, stood with handcuffs chained to the ceiling and with his feet shackled to a bolt in the floor; he appeared to have gone without sleep for a very long time. In the third clip, an obviously distraught prisoner, wearing only a diaper, was confined to a small, dark box too short to allow him to stand. The fourth video showed a trembling prisoner forced into the corner of a cell as two large, ferocious dogs yanked on their leashes and growled within inches of his face. The fifth clip was of a prisoner gagging and unable to breathe — as he lay strapped to an inclined board and large amounts of water were poured over a cloth covering his nose and mouth.

At that point, all four siblings simultaneously reached for the remote control to turn off the video player. They stared at each other, dumbfounded and alarmed by the situation in which they now found themselves. The silence was broken when the very large man re-entered the room. “We’ve seen enough,” they blurted out in unison. “Excellent,” the man replied. “This will be even quicker than I anticipated. Let me assure you that the additional videos you’ve skipped wouldn’t change your views in any way whatsoever. Here are the endorsement forms, and here’s your compensation.” Two large men wheeled in a large suitcase and together lifted it onto the table.

“Let’s get started with our review,” the very large man said. “Dr. Safe, you’re first. Are you ready to confirm that the procedures you observed were entirely safe? Let me assure you that, except for one, all of the prisoners you saw in the videos are still alive today, and their major organs function within normal limits. That one exception is the individual who was chained to the ceiling. He died several days later from an unfortunate accidental fall, but it was entirely unrelated to these interrogation techniques. Admittedly, the prisoners in the videos are experiencing physical and psychological discomfort to varying degrees, but I’m sure you realize that’s quite different from their being unsafe. Don’t you agree, Dr. Safe?” The man opened the suitcase. “Here are a few golden eggs to help you with your decision. Take a few minutes while I talk with your brother and sisters.”

“Dr. Legal, you’re next,” the man said as he shifted his gaze. “I assume you didn’t observe anything illegal in what transpired in the videos, correct? But wait, let me back up a step. In posing the question to you, I’m also assuming that a psychologist with your legal expertise is familiar with the latest interpretations of U.S. law regarding what constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. I hope we haven’t misjudged you in that way. Also, as a point of caution, please don’t let yourself be distracted by any of the nebulous strictures that some supposed scholars refer to as ‘international law.’ We’re all patriotic Americans here, right? Let’s stick with what we know. And here are some golden eggs to focus your thinking as well.”

Effective wondered if he could feign sudden illness before it was his turn. But he realized the futility of that plan, just as the very large man turned and spoke directly to him. “Dr. Effective, this endorsement should not be difficult for you either, especially if you approach it in the right way. Start by putting aside any research findings with which you’re already familiar. Instead, focus on this fact: with everything we do here, we take very careful and detailed notes. We monitor constantly, and we collect and analyze all data with religious precision. And then we adjust our interrogation techniques accordingly. So the key question you should ask yourself is whether or not this is an effective research project for determining which techniques work and which do not. You also have my assurance that we’re learning valuable things from the people we interrogate — all of which is classified and top-secret, as I’m sure you understand. If you have doubts, perhaps these will help.” The man pushed a few golden eggs across the table. Motionless and staring blankly until then, Effective reached out and caught one of them as it was about to roll off the table.

Ethical had just watched as her brothers and sister, all of whom she had long admired, were seemingly mesmerized, one after the other. She knew that she too would be severely tested. “So Dr. Ethical, I turn now to you, last but not least,” the very large man began. “Before you weigh in, let me mention that there have been discussions about rolling out a shorter slogan, just ‘Safe, legal, and effective.’ But ‘ethical’ apparently carries a lot of weight in certain quarters. Do you agree that everything you saw was ethical? We don’t require enthusiasm, just assent. As I’m sure you realize, ethics are unavoidably nuanced, abstract, and subject to interpretation. Also, if it simplifies matters for you, keep in mind that the people we interrogate are ‘the worst of worst,’ and they have crucial information we desperately need. From an ethical perspective, is any consideration more important than the preservation of our society itself? Have some golden eggs while you quickly ponder that.”

The very large man stood up again and glared in turn at each of the four siblings. “Why don’t we get these endorsement papers signed now, so we can get you home without further delay? If any of you would prefer some solitude to speed your thinking, down the hall we have several small cages that are currently empty. I apologize if my attempt at humor doesn’t strike you as funny.” The siblings smiled halfheartedly. But this apparent ploy at intimidation was entirely unnecessary. Safe, Legal, Ethical, and Effective had already wilted in their seats, and they had each begun mentally exploring the options for how they might later defend their endorsements, if ever called upon to do so. The siblings had all been silent until this point, but Ethical now asked a question: “Who else is going to see those videos?” “Oh, you needn’t worry about that,” the man quickly replied. “We plan to destroy them.”

He then offered some further reassurances. “Look, you all seem a bit hesitant. I’m not sure why. Just keep in mind what a huge opportunity this is,” the man said, opening wide the suitcase filled with golden eggs. “Opportunities not only for the four of you, but for the entire profession of psychology. Do you fully appreciate that? Your help here tonight will open many doors to a lot more work — consulting, research, everything. And trust me, we’re in this for the long haul. We’re offering you ‘a seat at the table.’ We want you to be part of our team, the winning team. The team that conducts ‘safe, legal, ethical, and effective’ interrogations.”

Of course the four siblings knew that “safe, legal, ethical, and effective” did not actually describe what they had traveled thousands of miles to watch. But the horrendous video images, painfully fresh in their minds, merely intensified the psychologists’ internal efforts at twisting reality. Each of them now puzzled over questions they once would have ridiculed as absurd: How dangerous must something be for “safe” to be an inaccurate description? Can anyone truly distinguish, with absolute certainty, between what’s unlawful and what is “legal”? Why should unambiguous, documented evidence of success be required to conclude that something is “effective”? Are judgments about what’s “ethical” ever black-and-white in a world that is often so gray?

The siblings cast sideways glances at the very large man, then at each other, and then at the suitcase filled with golden eggs. Ethical started to speak, but the man abruptly cut her off. “Sorry. Let me mention one more thing. It turns out we were misinformed about the schedule of outgoing flights back to the States. As planned, there is one tonight, in about an hour. I’d hate for you to miss it, because I’ve just learned that the next one isn’t for another two months. I’m sure our accommodations here are not quite what you’re accustomed to. Let’s just say that eight weeks with us would probably feel even quite a bit longer — although it would give all of you a chance to observe and assist with some of our interrogations first-hand. But perhaps you’re ready to sign the endorsements now?”

With sheepish looks all around, the four psychologists dutifully signed the forms, thereby giving the interrogation techniques their highly prized and widely respected endorsement. The siblings kept quiet about any fears that a lifetime of regrets and nightmares might now await them. Instead they muttered aloud to each other about how little choice they really had, and how others would do exactly what they had done.

And so, in a far-off land in the dead of night, an historic marketing campaign was launched and a new era for psychologists was born. Pushing a gurney carrying the large suitcase filled with golden eggs, Safe, Legal, Ethical, and Effective acknowledged the applause from dozens of smiling large men as they headed outside to the airstrip. As they neared the plane, the very large man approached them one last time.

“Doctors, there’s a bit of bad news. As it turns out, we need to transport four prisoners on this plane too. With their hoods and shackles they won’t cause you any trouble. But there will be a brief stopover on the way to DC. The bigger problem is this: with these additional passengers, that suitcase of golden eggs will put the plane dangerously over its weight limit. So either the suitcase or the four of you will have to stay behind. Sorry about that.” The very large man shrugged his shoulders and walked off. Safe, Legal, Ethical, and Effective looked at each other, unable to speak — which made it easy for them to hear the sudden anguished screams from the warehouse behind them.

********

Postscript. In 2005, despite evidence that psychologists were involved in abusive and torturous interrogations of national security detainees, an American Psychological Association (APA) Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) concluded that psychologists play a critical role in keeping such interrogations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective.”

The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology is leading a petition campaign calling for annulment of the APA’s PENS Report. To date, 34 organizations and over 2,000 individuals have signed on. Readers interested in supporting the annulment initiative can read the petition materials, review the current list of organizational and individual signers, and sign the petition at www.ethicalpsychology.org/pens.

********

Shortly after learning about the American Psychological Association’s (APA) new “Member-Initiated Task Force to Reconcile Policies Related to Psychologists’ Involvement in National Security Settings,” I found my thoughts turning to the School of the Americas, Blackwater and, perhaps even more surprisingly, the Patagonian toothfish. Those may seem like a strange threesome, but they share one important thing in common. All have undergone a thorough repackaging and renaming in a marketing effort aimed at obscuring — but not altering — some ugly truth.

The School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, had become infamous for training Latin American soldiers who would return home and engage in repressive campaigns involving rape, torture, and murder of political dissidents. To combat its negative image, the school was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, but the nature of its activities remain largely unchanged. During the Iraq War, Blackwater, a private military company supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. government contracts, gained international notoriety on many counts, including its use of excessive and often deadly force against Iraqi civilians. The company therefore renamed itself — twice — first as Xe Services and then again as Academi, with essentially the same core businesses. As for the Patagonian toothfish, it’s wrong to blame the fish itself. But in an effort to spur sales, merchants renamed it Chilean sea bass (for similar reasons, the slimehead fish is now known as orange roughy instead).  

Sadly, the same repackaging and renaming strategy of illusion and deception characterizes the APA’s latest gambit to both protect and disguise the role of psychologists as purveyors of harm. But to fully understand this new ploy — a “task force” to produce a comprehensive document of all APA ethics policies relevant to psychologists in national security settings — it’s helpful to first review some disturbing history.

There is incontrovertible evidence that in the years following the 9/11 attacks, psychologists served as planners, consultants, researchers, and overseers to the abusive and torturous interrogations of prisoners in the U.S. “global war on terror.” Multiple reports of wrongdoing emerged, such as one from the International Committee of the Red Cross describing psychological coercion techniques at Guantanamo Bay as “tantamount to torture.” APA members and others responded with outrage and clamor. It was immediately clear that the world’s largest psychological association needed to engage in a careful and transparent examination of whether professional ethics allow psychologists to serve in aggressive operational roles, such as detention and interrogation activities involving national security detainees. Tragically, however, APA’s leadership decided to take a very different path. They chose to rubber-stamp the status quo without any meaningful deliberation whatsoever.

More specifically, in mid-2005 the APA brought together a task force for a weekend meeting. It was dominated by representatives from the military-intelligence establishment , including several individuals who served in the chains of command publicly accused of detainee abuses. In short order, this “Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security” (PENS) issued the PENS Report, which asserted that psychologists may indeed “serve in various national security-related roles, such as a consultant to an interrogation.” With comparable speed, the APA Board called an “emergency” session and approved the Report, bypassing entirely the Association’s actual governing body, its Council of Representatives. APA staff and leadership then quickly followed by publicly promoting the view that psychologists help to keep interrogations “safe, legal, ethical and effective.” In sum, the Department of Defense and CIA obtained just the endorsement they wanted from the APA.

Since that time, further evidence has accumulated pointing to the entire PENS process as deeply flawed and corrupt . Newspaper reports and previously classified government documents have revealed distressing details about the physical and psychological abuse that were part and parcel of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” supported by psychologists. The release of emails from the PENS listserv has shown that Task Force member Colonel Morgan Banks promoted the view that psychologists help to keep interrogation operations “safe, legal, ethical and effective” before the Task Force ever met. As already noted, this exact phrase became the recurring public relations mantra of APA leadership after the Task Force meeting.

Skepticism regarding the composition of this “ethics” Task Force has been further strengthened by public statements from Task Force members themselves. As one example, Task Force member Colonel Larry James wrote a 2008 memoir in which he recounts an episode at the Guantanamo detention center where, as commanding officer, he poured a cup of coffee and watched for several minutes as an interrogator and three prison guards struggled to force a pink nightgown onto a detainee already unwillingly outfitted with pink panties, a wig, and lipstick (James never reported this incident to the appropriate authorities, even though he elsewhere described this kind of failure-to-report as a violation of military law). As another example, in a 2009 NPR interview Task Force member Captain Bryce Lefever defended the technique of locking an insect-phobic detainee in a small box with insects, explaining that “the things that are called…torture or exploitative are also therapy techniques.”

Despite revelations of this sort, the APA Board has consistently resisted efforts to re-open the crucial question of whether professional ethics support the use of psychologists in aggressive national security operational roles — roles that conflict with “do no harm” principles because they may involve coercion, deception, manipulation, humiliation, and other non-beneficent actions. In fact, it took a grassroots member-initiated referendum in 2008 — unwelcome by both APA leadership and the Department of Defense — to establish an APA policy that prohibits psychologists from working in national security detention settings operating outside of or in violation of the U.S. Constitution or international law. But even though voting members of the APA overwhelmingly passed this petition resolution, the association’s leadership has failed to take concerted action to implement the will of its membership, with psychologists’ ongoing work at the Bagram/Parwan prison in Afghanistan as a prime example.

The latest effort to challenge the legitimacy of APA’s stance in support of aggressive operational psychology is a broad-based campaign calling for official annulment of the PENS Report. Spearheaded by the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology (of which I am a member), this online petition effort ( www.ethicalpsychology.org/pens ) has already garnered endorsements from 34 organizations (including the ACLU, Physicians for Human Rights, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, and several divisions of APA itself) and over 1,800 individuals . These individual signers include two members of the PENS Task Force, current and past presidents of APA divisions, psychologists who work with torture survivors, and psychologists who have spent their careers working with veterans at VA hospitals. At the same time, recognition of the urgent need for PENS annulment extends well beyond the profession of psychology alone. Also among the petition signers are psychiatrists such as Robert Jay Lifton (author of The Nazi Doctors) and Stephen Xenakis (retired Brigadier General, U.S. Army), scholar-activists such as Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky, attorneys who have represented Guantanamo detainees, former members of the military and intelligence community, and members of the general public.

What can annulment of the PENS Report accomplish? First, annulment will serve to indisputably repudiate the illegitimate process by which the military-intelligence establishment took control over the core ethics of psychology as a profession. Second, annulment will set the stage for a long-overdue transparent, broad-based, and independent examination – by psychologists, by human rights advocates, by national security experts, and by ethicists – of whether or not it is ethical for psychologists to serve in aggressive operational roles in national security settings. More than a decade has passed since the attacks of 9/11 , yet this fundamental question has never been honestly and openly addressed. Indeed, the PENS Report was strategically designed to take this question off the table — by offering the mere pretense of meaningful discussion and debate.

This brings us back to the newly hatched “Member-Initiated Task Force to Reconcile Policies Related to Psychologists’ Involvement in National Security Settings.” Not surprisingly, the APA Board has already endorsed this initiative, giving an authoritative role to a handful of APA members who have opposed past efforts to restrict the actions of operational psychologists in national security settings. For example, one of the five “task force” members is William Strickland, president of HumRRO, a company that has received tens of millions of dollars in military contracts over the past decade. In 2010 Colonel Larry James (he of the pink panties episode noted earlier) thanked Strickland for his “hard fight on the floor of the Council of Representatives over the petition resolution and changes to the APA Ethics code.”

If this small group is successful, their actions will counter the push for annulment of the PENS Report and will thereby postpone indefinitely any careful examination of the ethics of aggressive operational psychology. Deceptively, the “task force” has actually claimed common cause with the annulment campaign by emphasizing that they aim to replace the PENS Report. Indeed, that’s the headline, and superficially it sounds encouraging. But a closer reading of the details quickly reveals the disturbing reality: key policies will simply be lifted from the PENS Report and placed in the proposed new “unified, comprehensive APA policy document.” This is the repackaging and renaming reminiscent of the School of the Americas, Blackwater, and the Patagonian toothfish. The PENS Report as a document may fall by the wayside, but its pernicious and illegitimate policy conclusions will be securely enshrined in APA’s “new and improved” replacement document — which means the presumption that it’s ethical for psychologists to serve in aggressive operational roles will continue to escape the inspection and evaluation it warrants.

If I seem to be describing a worst-case scenario, let me be clear: what I’ve just presented is really the only plausible scenario given the guidelines under which the new “task force” has said it will operate. Their announcement states that the new comprehensive document (months away from completion) will be “reflective of existing APA policy,” and that it will “not set new policy.” The announcement also states: “Some earlier policies are no longer valid as a result of subsequent policy statements.” Through a process of “reconciliation,” those old policies that conflict with more recent APA resolutions will be excluded from the final comprehensive document. However, the specific PENS policy asserting that it is ethical for psychologists to serve in aggressive operational activities such as interrogation consultation in national security settings does not conflict with any more recent APA resolution. Therefore, this policy’s safe transit into the new unified ethics document is already guaranteed.

So, a highly controversial policy with profound ethical implications, established solely through a corrupt process, will be repackaged, renamed, and preserved by this “task force.” They will give the policy a comfortable new home, from which it will retain its influence while also serving as the linchpin in efforts by some to promote operational psychology as an official area of professional specialization. There is no question that this new initiative is anti-annulment by design. Its supporters either knowingly seek to protect the policy prescriptions of the PENS Report or they have been misled by those who do.

At this point, it’s uncertain whether the APA’s latest maneuver will succeed. The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology has issued a statement expressing strong opposition to the new “task force,” and the petition campaign calling for annulment of the PENS Report continues to attract supporters. But there’s little doubt that clever marketing often carries the day (just ask the Patagonian toothfish), and APA leadership has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to resort to stonewalling and obfuscation when necessary to achieve its aims.

Such tactics are regrettable. It’s wrong to run away from a serious consideration of what’s truly ethical for psychologists working in the national security sector. We know that psychologists play valuable roles in such settings, including providing dedicated and expert care to our soldiers and their families. But with changing times, a profession committed to human welfare must be willing to look inward in order to honestly explore challenging and fundamental questions. Foremost among them is whether coercion, deception, manipulation, and humiliation should be part of a psychologist’s ethical work in support of his or her country. Answering this crucial question begins not with some diversionary new “task force,” but rather with annulment of the PENS Report.

Amid disturbing reports that psychologists were involved in the abuse and torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) met in the summer of 2005. Over two days they considered whether the Bush Administration’s no-holds-barred “enhanced interrogation” policies crossed ethical boundaries for military psychologists. Six of the nine voting Task Force members were on the payroll of the military/intelligence establishment, and some of them worked in the chains of command when and where instances of abuse and torture had reportedly occurred. So we should not be surprised by the Task Force’s conclusion that psychologists play an important role in keeping detainee interrogations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective.” This assessment affirmed, nearly verbatim, the military’s own description of Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) psychologists — a description that had been provided to the Task Force in writing  before  their deliberations even began.

Professional psychology has made valuable contributions to national security through collaborative efforts with government agencies — and it will undoubtedly continue to do so. But does anyone truly believe that crucial determinations about  psychological   ethics  should ever be guided by the views and agenda of the Secretary of Defense or the Director of the CIA? The many glaring flaws associated with the PENS Report are especially revealing since the APA is, after all, an organization of  psychologists . It’s therefore very unlikely that the Task Force organizers were somehow unaware of the potent psychological influences of power differentials on group dynamics; of authority structures and conformity pressures on independent decision-making; and of self-interest on objective, unbiased analysis. It’s far more likely the organizers knew exactly how to create the conditions that would reliably produce the outcome they sought.

Today, a grassroots campaign is underway calling on the APA to annul the PENS Report. This call for annulment is ultimately inseparable from important issues of accountability and transparency. Audre Lorde’s reminder that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” is helpful in describing the challenge. The key leadership of the APA today includes several high-level staff members who were central figures in the PENS Task Force fiasco. Similarly, two current Board members were also on the Board in 2005 when it approved the PENS Report in an emergency session. At a time when the destructive and corrupting consequences of too much power in too few hands have never been more apparent in corporate boardrooms on Wall Street (and elsewhere), how much different is the situation at APA headquarters?

In the six years since the PENS Report was issued, APA leadership has never encouraged a thorough reconsideration of the Task Force’s deliberations or the Report’s conclusions. And they have never, even in hindsight, expressed regret for any decisions made — despite the fact that the passage of time has repeatedly brought to light further evidence that psychologists acted as planners, consultants, researchers, and overseers to abusive and torturous detainee interrogations. Sadly, APA instead has relied on stonewalling and obfuscation. Why was the PENS Report put to an “emergency” vote of the Board alone, rather than bringing it before the Council of Representatives which, according to the APA, “has sole authority to set policy”? Why was the head of the Practice Directorate given a lead role in the PENS proceedings even though his spouse had been one of the psychologists at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center? Were representatives of the military/intelligence sector involved in the actual selection of members for the APA Task Force? Why were the identities of Task Force members not included in the Report itself and not made readily available to the press or to APA’s membership? And so on. Even at this late date, official answers to these and other longstanding questions would be welcome.

It’s crucial to recognize that the PENS Report remains a highly influential and authoritative policy document today. The Report is used by the Department of Defense as guidance for BSCT psychologists; by military psychologists seeking to advance “operational psychology” as an area of specialization that includes aggressive counterintelligence and counterterrorism operations; and by the APA Ethics Committee as a guide to ethical behavior in national security settings. The importance and urgency of annulment are made even clearer by current moves in Congress to restore and legalize the use of torturous interrogation techniques. If these efforts succeed, in all likelihood psychologists will be called upon again to oversee and implement morally repugnant practices.

Meanwhile, the annulment campaign is drawing broad support. To date, over 20 psychology and human rights organizations have officially endorsed the call, and over 1,100 individuals have stepped forward to sign the annulment petition online (www.ethicalpsychology.org/pens). They include a past president of the APA, APA’s 2012 president-elect, two members of the PENS Task Force itself, current and past presidents of APA divisions, psychologists who work with torture survivors, and psychologists who have spent their careers working with veterans at VA hospitals. At the same time, recognition of the urgent need for annulment extends well beyond the profession of psychology alone. Also among the petition signers are psychiatrists such as Robert Jay Lifton (author of The Nazi Doctors) and Stephen Xenakis (retired Brigadier General, U.S. Army), scholar-activists such as Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, attorneys who have represented Guantanamo detainees, and former members of the intelligence community.

Interested psychologists and non-psychologists alike can join this effort by signing the online annulment petition at www.ethicalpsychology.org/pens. Please consider doing so.

Cheney’s “safe-legal-effective” catechism is all too familiar to psychologists like me. It’s three-quarters of a phrase that has defined professional psychology’s decade-long ethical tailspin in the national security sector since the attacks of 9/11. And hearing these words again, I recalled an earlier interview with Stephen Behnke, Director of the Ethics Office of the American Psychological Association (APA). In August 2005, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! asked Dr. Behnke to explain the conclusions of the APA’s then newly released Presidential Report on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). The Report advocated the continuing involvement of psychologists in the interrogation of national security detainees. Dr. Behkne offered this summary: “The Task Force said that psychologists must adhere, and they used four words to describe psychologist involvement: safe, legal, ethical, and effective” (emphasis added).

In that same 2005 interview, Dr. Behnke also emphasized, “The Task Force states that psychologists have an absolute ethical obligation never to violate any United States law” (emphasis added). Here a similar point was made by President George W. Bush himself, a week before leaving the White House. In a Fox News interview with Brit Hume in January 2009, Bush explained, “I firmly reject the word ‘torture’…. Everything this administration did…had a legal basis to it, otherwise we would not have done it…. Everything we did was in consultation with professionals in our government who understand… how to use techniques in a way that gets information… within the law, necessary to protect the American people” (emphasis added).

These two examples of parallel messages — from the highest officials in the Bush Administration on the one hand and from the highest ethics official in the APA on the other — may seem surprising. But this is no coincidence at all. The PENS Report was drafted by Dr. Behnke and hastily approved by an “emergency” vote of the APA Board that bypassed the organization’s normal governance procedures. The Report was little more than APA’s official endorsement of already operative military/intelligence guidelines. Indeed, all members of the PENS Task Force were made aware, on the first day of their meeting, that Department of Defense (DoD) standard operating procedures described the mission of Behavioral Science Consultants (i.e., psychologists) working at Guantanamo Bay in this way: “Provide psychological consultation in order to support safe, legal, ethical, and effective detention and interrogation operations” (emphasis added). Yes, that same phrase once again.

The “Do No Harm” principle is central to the APA’s Ethics Code. Given prior reports that psychologists had been involved as planners, researchers, and overseers of abusive national security detainee interrogations, the PENS Task Force should have expressed grave concerns about the role of psychologists in such settings. But that would have required an unbiased, open, and honest deliberative process. Sadly, the actual PENS process was none of these things. From the start, the illegitimacy was rooted in the extreme bias represented by the composition of the Task Force itself. Six of the nine voting members worked for U.S. military or intelligence agencies (and five of them had served in chains of command involved in purported detainee abuse). This illegitimacy was further reinforced by serious, undisclosed conflicts of interest, including the unreported participation of high-level APA staff involved in lobbying military/intelligence agencies for psychology funding. In addition, the APA leadership prohibited the Task Force members from even discussing the PENS process or Report with interested APA members, media representatives, or the general public. These and other irregularities have raised serious and unanswered questions about the purpose, independence, and integrity of the Task Force’s agenda.

With the PENS Report, the APA departed from the international human rights standards that should guide the ethical conduct of all major healthcare organizations. In recent years, rank-and-file APA members — not the APA Board or Ethics Committee — have taken the lead in efforts to limit the damage from the PENS Report’s endorsement of psychologists’ involvement in detainee operations. Most noteworthy, a member-initiated referendum was passed in 2008. This new policy officially prohibits psychologists from working in settings that violate international law or the U.S. Constitution unless they are “working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights” (or unless they are providing treatment for military personnel). However, the APA leadership has failed to actively pursue implementation of this membership referendum.

Despite the efforts of thousands of dissident APA members and non-member psychologists alike, the PENS Report continues to have significant operational influence within national security and psychology settings. For example, the PENS Report remains a standard reference in the instructions that the DoD provides to psychologists involved in intelligence operations. Similarly, the PENS Report is the foundational ethics document for some psychologists attempting to establish “operational psychology” as an official APA area of specialization, spanning counterintelligence and counterterrorism operations. And in the APA Ethics Committee’s new online national security “casebook” commentary, the PENS Report is referenced repeatedly in guidance to psychologists on ethical decision-making.

In recognition of the PENS Report’s underlying illegitimacy and its ongoing destructive effects, the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology has organized a new online petition campaign calling for the Report’s official annulment by the APA. The effort has already galvanized supporters in the psychological, medical, legal, military/intelligence, and human rights communities, and broader outreach to concerned members of the public throughout the world is now underway. To date, 16 organizations — including Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and two of APA’s own divisions (the Society for Humanistic Psychology and the Executive Committee of the Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology) — have endorsed the annulment call. Over 600 individuals with diverse backgrounds have signed the petition as well. Included among the early signers are Philip Zimbardo, Stephen Xenakis, Noam Chomsky, Robert Jay Lifton, Daniel Ellsberg, Leonard Rubenstein, Tom Hayden, two members of the PENS Task Force (Jean Maria Arrigo and Michael Wessells), and two current candidates for APA president (Steven Reisner and Donald Bersoff).

APA leadership has a history of stonewalling on these deeply disturbing issues, and its resistance to transparency, accountability, and organizational change highlights the imposing challenge of overturning the PENS Report. But this annulment effort unmistakably has some early momentum. Each day it aims to bring new voices and broader awareness to the critical choices upon which both the well-being of a profession and the protection of human rights depend.

All individuals interested in signing the petition can do so at www.ethicalpsychology.org/pens, where they can read the petition and additional background documentation and review the complete list of current organizational and individual signers. Organizations interested in signing on should contact the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology at coalition@ethicalpsychology.org.

They all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery.

Although we may be tempted to look for parallels between this troubling tale and the ills of contemporary U.S. society, our attention should instead be drawn to two striking differences. First, whereas in Omelas one child tragically suffers for the welfare of everyone else, in the United States today many, many more children are abandoned to a metaphorical cellar — not for the greater good, but merely to preserve or enhance the lives of a privileged relative few. Second, the distressing arrangement is unalterable in Omelas, fixed in place by the author’s construction. In our world, the current system instead reflects an outrageous lack of political will and courage.

Who are our country’s cellar-dwelling children? They include the child whose parents have lost their jobs and cannot find the work needed to pay the bills and keep their home. They include the child whose future prospects and enthusiasm for learning have been crushed by too many days in the overcrowded classrooms of an underfunded school. They include the child denied life-transforming treatment for a debilitating illness because her family could not find affordable health insurance. And they include the child whose entire young life has been spent in the shadows of poverty and hopelessness. Of course it’s not only millions of children who are shuttered in the dark underground. But focusing on our country’s youth hopefully enables us to bypass the litany of “blame the victim” talking points that present extreme inequality as good and “free markets” as just distributors of merit-based rewards.

Yet at a time when the top 1% of Americans control a staggering 40% of the country’s wealth, many of our most powerful politicians and their influential backers and lobbyists are now working — in Washington, DC and in state capitols around the country — to promote deficit reduction strategies targeting the social service and safety net programs that are lifelines for so many. If these efforts succeed, even more of us — children, working families, the ill, the elderly — will soon find ourselves relegated to this ever-expanding metaphorical cellar.

In the press and on talk shows these leaders repeatedly proclaim that the time for “hard choices” and “belt-tightening” has arrived. But their unyielding support for preserving (or even expanding) tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires, and mammoth corporations with record profits reflects a commitment to protect the powerful and financially secure at the further expense of those who are already struggling. This is not a courageous choice worthy of admiration; it is much more accurately viewed as an expedient, callous, and self-interested attempt to redefine heroism. But even children know that heroes save the entire town by slaying the fire-breathing dragon just beyond its walls — they never chase the dragon into the crowded town square in order to protect the riches of the wealthy.

Today, true heroism is little different in form or purpose. We see it when parents work 16-hour days, stringing together grueling part-time jobs to make sure their children have food and clothing. We see it when neighbors offer a spare room to the family down the block to help them stay off the street after being evicted from their foreclosed home. We see it when community members raise desperately needed funds for an injured child’s medical care. And we see it when students, parents, teachers, and staff unite to protest planned cuts that will hurt their schools.

At the end of her story, Le Guin notes that after visiting the forlorn child in the cellar some residents of Omelas decide to walk away from the city:

They walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

In this provocative world, the creation of a writer’s imagination, rescuing the cellar-bound child will harm everyone else. Therefore, leaving Omelas — relinquishing the comforts gained from another’s suffering and opting instead for an uncertain personal future — becomes an individual’s greatest act of moral defiance.

The choice facing us today is just as significant in its moral consequences, but it’s not nearly as difficult to make. Fortunately, we are free to act in concert to collectively change our circumstances for the better — without causing anyone to suffer. We’re limited only by our own willingness to hear and find direction from the many muffled yet resilient voices in our midst. Rather than walking away, we can join together and demand that our nation’s first priority be to protect and empower those in need. In the ongoing deficit reduction debate, this surprisingly simple guidepost marks a path forward that will ultimately benefit us all.