The single most crucial factor in determining the outcome of the PENS meeting was the selection of the individuals who would comprise the PENS Task Force. Now ten years later, the APA has still never adequately explained that critical selection process. According to APA Ethics Office Director Stephen Behnke, who was the primary drafter of the PENS Report, well over 100 names were submitted in response to a call for nominations. But neither the identities of the decision-makers nor the selection criteria they used have ever been revealed by the APA.
In that regard, Risen's Pay Any Price describes a troubling and previously undisclosed email from then APA Science Policy Director Geoff Mumford to psychologist Kirk Hubbard, an "enhanced interrogation" advocate who had recently retired from the CIA. Sent just days after release of the PENS Report, Dr. Mumford's email thanked Dr. Hubbard -- who was then working for Mitchell Jessen & Associates -- for his key role in getting the PENS effort "off the ground" and assured him that his views were "well represented by very carefully selected task force members."
The specific improprieties revealed in this email raise broader concerns. As part of his investigation, Mr. Hoffman should therefore obtain the names and correspondence of everyone who was involved -- directly or indirectly -- in the selection of the PENS Task Force members. He should also ascertain the basis upon which these individuals -- including Dr. Hubbard -- were given this weighty responsibility. Furthermore, the investigative team should obtain and thoroughly review the full set of task force applications, along with all notes and correspondence relating to why certain individuals were selected for the task force and why others were not.
It is difficult to imagine that any reasonable, unbiased selection process involving over 100 candidates could have produced a PENS Task Force in which a majority of the nine voting members -- Morgan Banks, Michael Gelles, Larry James, Bryce Lefever, and Scott Shumate -- were on the payroll of the U.S. military or intelligence agencies and had served in locations where detainee abuses allegedly took place. Yet the APA leadership has never acknowledged that this task force composition represents a source of legitimate and serious concern.
Nor has the APA acknowledged that most PENS Task Force members -- as active duty military or intelligence personnel -- were essentially spokespersons for the government. As such, their professed views were fixed and realistically could not change in response to deliberations. In particular, their support for the participation of psychologists in national security interrogations and related operations -- as well as their accommodation to the Bush Administration's permissive legal definition of torture -- was firmly established from the outset. The strategic composition of the PENS Task Force thereby circumvented the group's ostensible objective: an open-minded examination of the fit between psychological ethics and the roles of psychologists in national security settings. Mr. Hoffman's team should therefore seek all materials and correspondence that can illuminate the actual purpose and the behind-the-scenes planning of PENS that took place in the months before the meeting.
One might reasonably argue that individuals with first-hand knowledge of national security operations were uniquely qualified to provide essential information. But expert consultants could have been called upon to inform the PENS Task Force about the official positions and standard procedures of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment. The APA's inclusion of such insiders as members of the task force instead guaranteed a pre-determined outcome. A comparable situation might involve permitting individuals to serve on a jury even though their continued employment required them to support a particular verdict.
The active duty military/intelligence representatives selected for the PENS Task Force -- again, a majority of the voting members -- should also have been excluded on the basis of their clear conflicts of interest. Standard 3.06 of the APA Ethics Code on Conflict of Interest states: "Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to"impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists--
Participation on the PENS Task Force was indisputably a "professional role" and it was certainly reasonable to expect that the objectivity and effectiveness of these members would be impaired. After all, the roles of psychologists like them involved in detention and interrogation operations were supposedly under review (thus, impaired objectivity) and they were not free to recommend ethical guidelines that diverged from their employers' current practices (thus, impaired effectiveness). These serious conflict-of-interest problems seem so obvious that it is very difficult to fathom how APA leadership could have viewed the arrangement as appropriate. Mr. Hoffman should therefore insist upon an explanation from the individual task force members themselves and also from APA senior staff, including Dr. Behnke, the director of APA's Ethics Office.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
