Operational psychology, professional ethics, and democracy: A challenge for our time

Abstract

The post-9/11 US torture program brought attention to the critical roles of health professionals generally and of psychologists more particularly in the modern administration of torture. Over a decade of controversy in the American Psychological Association (APA) and an independent investigation finding APA collusion with the Bush administration’s torture and coercive interrogation programs led to 2015 policies restricting the activities of psychologists in national security interrogations and illegal detention sites like Guantanamo. This controversy expanded to evaluation of a broader set of issues regarding the ethical roles of psychologists in furthering military and intelligence operations, or what has become known as operational psychology. Controversy over the extent to which operational psychology activities are consistent with psychological ethics has expanded since 2015 with critics calling for policies restraining operational psychologists from involvement in activities that cause greater than trivial unstipulated harm, lack informed consent, or are absent plausible independent ethical monitoring (due, for instance to information classification). Operational psychologists have pushed back against any constraints on their actions other than US law and government regulations. This debate also raises a broader issue, are there limitations on the extent to which we as members of democratic societies can tolerate the use of psychological science and expertise to manipulate unwitting people?