Response to Staal “psychological ethics and operational psychology”—fundamental issues and methods.

Abstract

We here respond to Staal's (2018) critique of the Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology. Staal proclaimed that there are no major ethical problems in the domain of operational psychology, and, if there were, only operational psychologists would be qualified to address the problems. We respond to Staal by providing (a) background to the Brookline Workshop, (b) a case of abuse by a Behavioral Science Consultant psychologist at Guantánamo, (c) perspectives-ours and Staal's-on the ethics of operational psychology, (d) implications of the doctrine of civil-military relations, and (e) key considerations for ethics in operational psychology. Public Significance StatementThe use of professional psychology to aid military and intelligence operations, known as operational psychology, is fraught with ethical challenges. The use of psychologists to design and implement torture and detainee abuse highlighted some of these challenges. The challenges are outlined and a solution consistent with military institutional structures is proposed. Any serious approach to the ethics of operational psychology will need to confront these challenges, whether or not this specific solution is accepted.

Second response to Staal: Independent moral assessment, an essential requirement for ethical practice in operational psychology.

“…The Brookline Principles propose that when psychologists violate civilian-sector psychological ethics, they are no longer operating as psychologists but as intelligence professionals and should not claim to be psychologists or take roles in the psychological profession. As we argued in our prior response (Soldz et al, 2018), the Brookline Principles thus protect traditional civil-military relations and the social contract of the professions, at career inconvenience to AOP practitioners. But national security is not at stake.…”

“…In his initial critique, Staal (2018a) criticized our meeting on methodological and ideological grounds and condemned the resulting Brookline Principles (Soldz et al, 2016; Soldz et al, 2017). In an earlier response (Soldz et al, 2018), we argued that Staal and his colleagues have failed to adequately address legitimate concerns related to traditional civil-military relations and the social contract of the professions—both essential to broader issues of democratic process. We had hoped that in his subsequent reply Staal (2018b) would engage with these concerns; we are disappointed that he has chosen not to do so.…”

Lies, statistics, and Brookline: A response to Soldz, Arrigo, Frakt, & Olson.

“…There is an absence of thoughtful investigative science, deductive logic, and critical thinking in Soldz et al’s response to my review of the Brookline report (Soldz, Arrigo, Frakt, & Olson, in press).…”