The Academic Exchange Talk about your dispute with the APA.

Professor Scott Lilienfeld It began with a 1998 article published in Psychological Bulletin by Bruce Rind and some of his colleagues—a meta-analysis, a quantitative review of childhood sexual abuse research. They combined hundreds of studies and looked at the overall effect. It seemed to suggest that the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and later psychopathology was not non-existent, but weaker than many people had previously expected and anticipated. Although some people have argued that there were legitimate disagreements about how careful they were in their conclusions, Rind and his colleagues were careful to point out that lack of harmfulness doesn’t mean lack of wrongfulness, and that therefore that doesn’t imply that childhood sexual abuse is ever condonable.

This was published after a very long process of peer review. It was picked up by a conservative radio talk show host in Philadelphia, and it got passed on to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who then began a kind of campaign over her radio talk show to condemn this article as an attempt to normalize pedophilia. Other organizations jumped into the fray. Some on the extreme right were very upset because they thought it was another effort on the part of liberals to normalize behaviors they found morally offensive; some on the extreme left, especially those who were very strong child abuse advocates, also jumped on the article. Certain fringe groups think that abuse is the cause of all forms of psychopathology, a view that I think is hard to defend given the data. Things began spiraling out of control over a period of months, and various members of Congress, almost exclusively conservatives, began demanding that renounce the article and apologize for it. Under a tremendous amount of Congressional pressure, APA in essence did just that.

I wrote an article for American Psychologist in which I was critical of APA for capitulating to members of Congress. I don’t think APA should have necessarily defended the article; it’s not their role. But they should have defended the peer-review process. I was very critical of members of Congress for what I regarded as bullying APA and the authors on the basis of findings that they didn’t agree with. They’re more than free to express opinions—that’s actually healthy—but to try to intimidate an organization into retracting findings that they don’t like sets a very dangerous precedent. I also tried to be constructive and talk about how to deal with these kinds of problems when they arise in the future.

[After Lilienfeld’s article was reviewed, revised, and accepted, the editor asked him to excise all references to the Rind case.] Unless you uncover plagiarism, there is no excuse for unaccepting a previously accepted article. All of it was really a shameful episode for the American Psychological Association.

AE Do you believe politics and science should always be kept separate?

SL I know some people think that all of science is inherently political. I know that’s a politically correct and popular view nowadays. I’m actually not very convinced by that argument. Sure, the boundaries get blurry around the edges. Certainly there are cases in which one might argue that certain kinds of scientific research shouldn’t be published. But I think we have to set a very high threshold for any kind of political incursion into scientific research, particularly if we just don’t like the findings.

I think it’s very important for politicians and media personalities to understand the way science works. Science is a self-correcting process and by its very nature tentative. When people report scientific findings, it’s part of the conversation. It doesn’t mean they’re right or wrong, and other scientists will then enter into that dialogue and either try to corroborate or refute those findings. Hopefully, we’ll end up with a closer picture of the truth when all is said and done.

AE Do you think this episode has had a chilling effect on some scholarship?

SL I think this pattern of behavior can and will exert a chilling effect. It already has on Bruce Rind. He himself has shied away from doing work on child sexual abuse. And I fear it will happen in other areas, too.

AE What advice would you give to scholars considering work on contro-versial topics?

SL My hope would be that people would stand tall and not be intimidated. But I could never tell another person, particularly a young scholar just starting a career, what to do, because I wouldn’t lie to them and tell them that there are no attendant risks involved. Ultimately, it is a very tough and personal decision that every investigator has to make. I would certainly hope, though, that a certain number of people would have the courage and integrity to pursue these issues even though they might be unpopular.