>From: "Jeffrey Nagelbush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Fwd: [evol-psych] Journal Backs Away From Article Critical of >Congress and Psychology Association >Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:06:05 -0400 >> >>This article from The Chronicle of Higher Education >>(http://chronicle.com) was forwarded to you from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> Wednesday, May 23, 2001 >> >> Journal Backs Away From Article Critical of Congress and >> Psychology Association >> >> By JENNIFER K. RUARK >> >> The editor of American Psychologist, a leading psychology >> journal, has reneged on an agreement to publish an article >> critical of the journal's sponsor and of several members of >> Congress. >> >> The author, Scott O. Lilienfeld, an associate professor of >> psychology at Emory University, describes his article -- >> originally titled "The Bonfire of the Vilifiers" -- as an >> analysis of what happens "when social science and politics >> collide." In it, he charges the American Psychological >> Association with caving in to Congressional pressure when it >> apologized for an article about childhood sexual abuse written >> by Temple University's Bruce Rind and others. The article >> appeared in the association's journal Psychological Bulletin. >> >> Mr. Lilienfeld's article was scheduled to appear in the >> group's other journal, American Psychologist, in June. But on >> May 10 the journal's editor, Richard McCarty, wrote a letter >> to Mr. Lilienfeld overruling the guest editor who had accepted >> the manuscript based on three favorable reviews, and with Mr. >> McCarty's initial blessing. >> >> "It may not be censorship but it raises the specter of >> censorship, and raises concerns about the suppression of >> writings that are critical of the A.P.A. or that are critical >> of members of Congress," said Mr. Lilienfeld. >> >> Mr. McCarty wrote in his letter that he was concerned about >> the manuscript's "narrow focus and tone" and that he had >> solicited five additional reviews unbeknownst to Mr. >> Lilienfeld. Noting that the American Psychologist is "a >> vehicle for organizational policy," he suggested that Mr. >> Lilienfeld either submit the manuscript to another journal or >> "delete the first part of the manuscript that deals with the >> Rind et al. article" and use other examples to illustrate the >> tensions between scientists and policy makers. >> >> Mr. McCarty refused to comment to The Chronicle, citing >> ethical obligations not to discuss an article under review. >> >> "The article is not under review," said Mr. Lilienfeld. "One >> can always claim that he is merely asking for revisions, but >> what he is asking would entirely eviscerate the article of its >> content, and I will not be revising it." He is appealing the >> decision to the association's board of publications. >> >> The association's chief executive officer, Raymond D. Fowler, >> did comment in a memorandum posted on a psychology e-mail list >> where Mr. Lilienfeld had aired his case. Although he is editor >> in chief of American Psychologist, Mr. Fowler said he would >> recuse himself from any decision making on the Lilienfeld >> article because he had been directly involved in the original >> controversy over the article about sexual abuse. In response >> to accusations that Mr. McCarty's decision had been >> politically motivated, Mr. Fowler wrote, "I don't think anyone >> who knows Richard thinks of him as a political animal or >> particularly politically motivated." >> >> Mr. Lilienfeld suggested that Mr. McCarty should not have been >> involved in the publication decision either, because he is the >> psychology association's executive director for science and >> thus implicitly criticized in Mr. Lilienfeld's article. >> >> But Mr. McCarty initially supported the decision of the guest >> editor, Nora Newcombe (who is also at Temple) to publish the >> article. In a January 23 e-mail message to Mr. Lilienfeld, he >> wrote: "Nora let me know that your paper was accepted for >> publication in A.P. Congratulations! I understand you are >> revising it now. I hope you will agree with Nora's suggestions >> to modify the tone and the title. I think it will be longer >> lived if you do. Once you and she are satisfied with it, we >> will get it into the pipeline as quickly as possible." >> >> In a subsequent message, he advised Mr. Lilienfeld to "do the >> best you can with the 'tone' issue without stripping the >> manuscript of its essence." >> >> Ms. Newcombe did not return a telephone call seeking comment, >> but the e-mail messages indicate that Mr. McCarty was >> referring to advice from three peer reviewers who had >> recommended acceptance pending a softening of the tone. A >> fourth reviewer had recommended rejection but agreed instead >> to contribute a critical commentary to the same issue of the >> journal. But that reviewer withdrew his commentary after >> reading Mr. Lilienfeld's revision (retitled "When Worlds >> Collide"), saying that the new version was "quite a bit more >> compelling than the original article." >> >> Ms. Newcombe thanked Mr. Lilienfeld for his "responsive >> revision" and said it had her "final acceptance" although it >> would be fact-checked. >> >> As far as Mr. Lilienfeld knew, his article was working its way >> through the publication process. In response to a query in >> early April, the managing editor, Melissa Warren, informed him >> that the June issue was full and that she was still processing >> his manuscript. >> >> A month and a half later, he received Mr. McCarty's letter >> informing him of the additional peer reviewers. One of the >> five experts in childhood sexual abuse and science policy >> feared, with Mr. McCarty, that the article would be taken as >> "a ringing defense" of Rind et al. >> >> Mr. Lilienfeld says he has no opinion on the Rind research, >> which analyzed existing studies of childhood sexual abuse and >> concluded that not all instances of sex between adults and >> children cause psychological harm to children. The article >> took care to distinguish between moral or legal "wrongfulness" >> and scientific "harmfulness," but created an uproar two years >> ago among religious groups and conservative members of >> Congress, who said the psychology association was endorsing >> pedophilia. >> >> Under pressure from Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, and >> others, the association apologized for the article and sought >> a review of its findings from an independent panel of the >> American Association for the Advancement of Science. That >> panel declined to conduct the review. >> >> "I don't know if [Rind and his colleagues] are right," says >> Mr. Lilienfeld. "I was objecting to the way it was handled, >> and the threats to academic freedom. I never expected to >> become part of the saga myself." On Monday, he resigned from >> the American Psychological Association. >> >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >> >>Chronicle subscribers can read this article on the Web at this address: >>http://chronicle.com/daily/2001/05/2001052302n.htm >> >>If you would like to have complete access to The Chronicle's Web >>site, a special subscription offer can be found at: >> >> http://chronicle.com/4free >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >> >>You may visit The Chronicle as follows: >> >> * via the World-Wide Web, at http://chronicle.com >> * via telnet at chronicle.com >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Copyright 2001 by The Chronicle of Higher Education _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
