February 8, 2007 – The Leona Tyler Principle, adopted by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1973, has just been unanimously adopted by NARTH’s Governing Board on the advice of its Scientific Advisory Committee.
In essence, the principle states that when psychologists are speaking as members of their profession, any advocacy in which they engage should be based on scientific data and demonstrable professional experience. Perhaps Dr. Tyler, then APA’s president, was able to foresee the day when organized psychology would be influenced by activism, and she wanted to ensure that psychology as a profession would not be eroded.
Read the rest on the NARTH website…
A real change would be for NARTH to accept responsibility for its mistakes and failures and stop blaming “gay activists” for the fact that they have no good science to back up their claims. They have blamed “gay activists” for forcing the APA to remove homosexual as an illness. They have blamed “gay activists” for the fact that they have not produced any good scientific studies. The have blamed “gay activists” for wanting to “silence them” when articles by their own advisors (Berger and Schoenwolf) were widely criticized.
I bet they aslo blame the activists for their decision to shut down their blog. What would be really nice would be a public apology for all of this blame-shifting. Like Timothy, I am pessimistic.
OK, I’ll be the pessimist.
NARTH always claims that they are the ones who represent real science and that everyone else is just polically correct. I don’t predict much change.
Well, I would respectfully say to those at NARTH that the website needs a makeover if they intend to follow the Tyler principle.
I think I’ve got it! Nicolosi OUT. Blog DOWN. Science IN. Move that bus! It’s “Extreme Makeover — NARTH Edition”!
It’s good to see NARTH formally adopt this principle some 34 years (!) after it became the official stance of the APA. I guess this simple ethical stance was controversial within NARTH?
Now, I’ll be watching to see how NARTH implement’s this principle. The devil is always in the details.
well-said Michael.
“In essence, the principle states that when psychologists are speaking as members of their profession, any advocacy in which they engage should be based on scientific data and demonstrable professional experience.”
Now there’s a concept — scientists basing what they are saying on science. This may be a difficult transition for NARTH.