Abstract
The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA's long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights.
Highlights
The American Psychological Association (APA) has a long history of opposing the misuse of psychological knowledge in practice, assessment, research and any other activity utilizing the tools of the field [1,2]
One set revolved around the appointment of task force members who were primarily psychologists serving active military or working in some current capacity with the U.S Department of Defense (DoD) [7]
We have critiqued an array of flaws within the Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) Report, and yet we are optimistic that positive restorative steps will be taken
Summary
The American Psychological Association (APA) has a long history of opposing the misuse of psychological knowledge in practice, assessment, research and any other activity utilizing the tools of the field [1,2]. The report argues that "it is consistent with the APA Ethics Code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation...as psychologists have a long-standing tradition of doing in other law enforcement contexts" A mainstay argument for prohibition against psychologist involvement is that the role inherently forces ethical compromises, and these constitute too great a risk for psychologists and detainees, not to mention the discipline of psychology and national security itself [13,40] These compromises are evident in the PENS Report's "no mixedroles" rule as anywhere. Any psychologist at Guantanamo or the black sites who questions the orders of the commanding officer to get more intelligence with methods that offend the psychologist but not the commanding officer, could be severely disciplined
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
