I. Overview of the Report
The Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) met in response to the Board of Directors’ February 2005 charge, that the Task Force:
The Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) met in response to the Board of Directors’ February 2005 charge, that the Task Force:
[E]xamine whether our current Ethics Code adequately addresses [the ethical dimensions of psychologists’ involvement in national security-related activities], whether the APA provides adequate ethical guidance to psychologists involved in these endeavors, and whether APA should develop policy to address the role of psychologists and psychology in investigations related to national security.
Recognizing the ethical complexity of this work, which takes place in unique settings and constantly evolving circumstances, the Task Force was nonetheless able to set forth 12 clear and agreed-upon statements about psychologists’ ethical obligations.
As a context for its statements, the Task Force affirmed that when psychologists serve in any position by virtue of their training, experience, and expertise as psychologists, the APA Ethics Code applies. The Task Force thus rejected the contention that when acting in roles outside traditional health-service provider relationships psychologists are not acting in a professional capacity as psychologists and are therefore not bound by the APA Ethics Code.
The Task Force noted that the Board of Directors’ charge did not include an investigative or adjudicatory role, and as a consequence emphasized that it did not render any judgment concerning events that may or may not have occurred in national security- related settings. Nonetheless, the Task Force was unambiguous that psychologists do not engage in, direct, support, facilitate, or offer training in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and that psychologists have an ethical responsibility to be alert to and report any such acts to appropriate authorities. The Task Force stated that it is consistent with the APA Ethics Code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national security-related purposes, as psychologists have a long-standing tradition of doing in other law enforcement contexts. Acknowledging that engaging in such consultative and advisory roles entails a delicate balance of ethical considerations, the Task Force stated that psychologists are in a unique position to assist in ensuring that these processes are safe and ethical for all participants.
The Task Force Report concludes with a series of recommendations to the American Psychological Association Board of Directors.
As a context for its statements, the Task Force affirmed that when psychologists serve in any position by virtue of their training, experience, and expertise as psychologists, the APA Ethics Code applies. The Task Force thus rejected the contention that when acting in roles outside traditional health-service provider relationships psychologists are not acting in a professional capacity as psychologists and are therefore not bound by the APA Ethics Code.
The Task Force noted that the Board of Directors’ charge did not include an investigative or adjudicatory role, and as a consequence emphasized that it did not render any judgment concerning events that may or may not have occurred in national security- related settings. Nonetheless, the Task Force was unambiguous that psychologists do not engage in, direct, support, facilitate, or offer training in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and that psychologists have an ethical responsibility to be alert to and report any such acts to appropriate authorities. The Task Force stated that it is consistent with the APA Ethics Code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national security-related purposes, as psychologists have a long-standing tradition of doing in other law enforcement contexts. Acknowledging that engaging in such consultative and advisory roles entails a delicate balance of ethical considerations, the Task Force stated that psychologists are in a unique position to assist in ensuring that these processes are safe and ethical for all participants.
The Task Force Report concludes with a series of recommendations to the American Psychological Association Board of Directors.