|
from Ethical Issues
APA Defends Scientific Freedom:
NARTH Responds
Scientific journals must be free to publish findings
that are "surprising, disappointing, or controversial."
--Norine Johnson, APA President
(August 2001) The American Psychological
Association Council of Representatives has issued
a strong statement defending scientific freedom,
and APA's President Norine Johnson has just
signaled her full agreement.
Writing in the Monitor in Psychology (July/August,
2001) President's Column, Dr. Johnson stated:
"I am strongly supportive of open debate in the
APA, regardless of the volume or intensity of the
debate. Debate is healthy. Disagreement is
healthy. ..The strength of psychology can be seen
both in its support of colleagues, appreciation of
their work, and the intensity of some of our
debates."
NARTH's President Joseph Nicolosi welcomed the
A.P.A.'s new support for openness, and issued a
call for the Association to extend it to
discussions of sexual orientation.
The 2000 statement by the A.P.A. Council of
Representatives stated, in part,
"APA is committed to fostering a vigorous science
of psychology through the open exchange of ideas
and data. A productive and healthy science
requires freedom of inquiry and freedom of
expression. Researchers must be free to pursue
their scientific investigations...
[E]ditors, too, must be free to publish that
science in their journals even when the findings
are surprising, disappointing, or controversial."
APA's statement was issued last year after
Congress censured the Association for publishing a
controversial study on pedophilia. In July of
1999, the House of Representatives had passed a
resolution "condemning and denouncing" the
conclusions of an A.P.A. Psychological Bulletin
article which suggested that pedophile
relationships may result in little or no harm, and
could in some cases even be positive experiences
for "willing" children, particularly boys.
The uproar resulted after NARTH had published a
fact sheet, "The Problem of Pedophilia,"
condemning the narrowness of the study's
conclusions and its failure to acknowledge that a
moral-philosophical discussion is vital to the
understanding of any sexual issue. Radio talk-show
host Dr. Laura Schlessinger's subsequent broad
public exposure of the article "threatened to
shake the APA at its core," according to The
National Psychologist, concluding with a "three-month public
relations nightmare" for the Association.
Said NARTH's President Joseph Nicolosi, "APA
defended its right to publish a study that will,
unfortunately, be used in our courts to show that
'consensual' molestation is not substantially
harmful to boys. We concur that such studies do
have a place in the scientific literature--as long
as APA is willing to admit that such a study does
not 'prove' that there is nothing wrong or
unhealthy in child molestation. Nothing of the
sort has ever been 'proven.'"
"But at the same time," he said, "we call on APA
to extend its scientific openness to the study of
sexual orientation. NARTH members have been
excluded from APA panel discussions, and NARTH has
never been permitted to announce its national
conferences in APA publications."
APA Twice Rebuffs NARTH
In 1995, NARTH member Uriel Meshoulam, Ph.D. had
submitted a "Call for Papers" to be run in the APA
Monitor. The Monitor has a policy of announcing
upcoming conferences that are of interest to
psychologists.
A.P.A.'s Associate Executive Director of Public
Communication responded to our request as follows:
"I solicited input on your request for publicity
from the APA Executive Staff.
It was our consensus that because NARTH's position
on homosexuality is in direct conflict with APA's
position on the issue, and is also in conflict
with current research findings on sexual
orientation, we will not publish any NARTH
announcements in the Monitor."
Paul Denhalter, Ph.D. of NARTH's Committee on
Academic Intimidation then took over
correspondence with the APA, and responded as
follows:
"By denying legitimate but controversial groups
assistance in advertising their meetings, the APA
appears to be attempting to stop free and open
discussion of these issues. A healthy organization
has no need to silence the scholarly dialogue of
its members. On the contrary, open discussion
seems essential to its viability.
"I would ask that APA reconsider its position and
allow NARTH to post a call for papers, and
demonstrate thereby that APA supports all
substantive and scholarly analysis."
Dr. Denhalter never received a response.
NARTH member Dr. Mark Stern was also rebuffed in
his efforts to gain program time for our
association at the upcoming APA Convention. In a
letter from the APA's Board of Convention Affairs,
Dr. Stern was told,
"The premise of your organization that
homosexuality is a treatable disorder is in
conflict with APA's position on sexual
orientation. For that reason, we cannot comply
with your request."
Said NARTH's Joseph Nicolosi: "If APA truly wants
scientific openness--even when, as APA's president
Norine Johnson says, scientific findings are
surprising, disappointing, or controversial--then
NARTH must be invited to participate in
APA's discussion of sexual orientation issues."
--by Linda Ames Nicolosi
Updated: 8 February 2008
|
