American Psychological Association removes infamous "Nuremberg Defense"
from ethics code
Leaves other ethics loopholes
1 March, 2010
Op Ed News
Reproduced with permission
Stephen Soldz*
Last week, the American Psychological Association (APA) finally revised
its ethics code so that it no longer contained the so-called "Nuremberg
Defense," allowing dispensing with professional ethics when they conflicted
with "law, regulations, other governing legal authority." This clause was
added in 2002, at the heyday of the Bush administration.
APA dissidents,
retired military personnel,
ethicists, and
human rights
advocates have long pushed for its removal.
A number of military psychologists who served in or trained the
Behavioral Science Consultation Team at Guantanamo (BSCT) had opposed change
in this code. Not coincidentally, this section had been emphasized in the
instructions
for the BSCTs and in the APA's report of the 2005 task force on
Psychological Ethics
and National Security (PENS) where the APA let military-intelligence
psychologists
create ethics policy for the association.
The ethics code 1.02 has stated since 2002:
If psychologists' ethical responsibilities conflict
with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists
make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the
conflict. If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may
adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal
authority.
When
the change goes into effect in June, this clause will essentially revert
to the pre-2002 wording:
If psychologists' ethical responsibilities conflict
with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists
clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the
Ethics Code and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent
with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under
no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating
human rights
The removal should be a cause for celebration. However, like every change
in APA's policies on psychologists providing interrogation support, this
change is too little too late. APA leadership waited till over a year after
the end of the Bush regime and its "enhanced interrogation" torture program
before changing this clause which provided protection for psychologists
aiding the torturers. While the Justice Department's OLC torture memos
provided legal protection, the APA policy complemented that protection by
providing protection from future charges that psychologists aiding detainee
abuse violated professional ethics.
While the infamous 1.02 is gone from the ethics code, the less well known
but equally disturbing section 8.05 governing research without informed
consent is still there. It allows dispensing with informed consent, the
bedrock of professional ethics, whenever "law or federal or institutional
regulations" say it is OK:
Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only (1)
where research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or
harm and involves (a) the study of normal educational practices,
curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational
settings; (b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations,
or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place
participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their
financial standing, employability, or reputation , and confidentiality
is protected; or (c) the study of factors related to job or organization
effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no
risk to participants' employability, and confidentiality is protected or
(2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional
regulations. [emphasis added]
Thus, research on detainees would be acceptable as long as institutional
regulations (from the CIA or Defense Department, say) gave permission.
If the APA were really interested in removing loopholes in the ethics
code, they would have changed this clause without prodding.
I have been calling for change in this and another problematic research
ethics clause for years. Unfortunately, the battle to remove loopholes in
the ethics code allowing abuse will continue into the indefinite future.