The APA Division of Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse is now 40 years old. We were initially voted into the APA as the Division of Behavioral Pharmacology in 1966 with Murray Jarvik serving as our first President. What I find most amazing is that our Division’s second President, Vic Laties, continues to serve the Division in his new found role as co-administrator of our Web site. Somewhere between 1968 and 1973, we became the Division of Psychopharmacology, and then in 1990 we renamed ourselves the Division of Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse. These historical tidbits were gleaned from the archives of our Division newletters, found on our Web site (http:/www.apa.org/ divisions/div28/newsletter.html) thanks to Ron Wood’s hard work over the past years.

As I began my term as President of Division 28, I embarked on a review of our history to provide some guidance and inspiration as we look forward. In so doing, I quickly realized, once again, the enormous value of looking backwards when one ponders future endeavors. In this, my initial newsletter column, I share glimpses of the past with hopes that they might inspire some to continued action in service of the Division and its mission.

In case you are wondering what our mission is, it was last published in the newsletter in 1998 when our by-laws were revised under the leadership of Nancy Ator.

The mission of this Division shall be to encourage the advancement of knowledge on the behavioral effects of psychotropic drugs and toxicants, which includes not only basic psychopharmacology research but also research into the determinants and treatment of substance abuse, the pharmacological treatment of mental illness, and other clinical uses of centrally active drugs. Three primary concerns of the Division shall be (a) disseminating research-based information on psychopharmacology and substance abuse within APA, in educational settings, and to other scientists; (b) encouraging the application of the results of psychopharmacology research to human affairs; and (c) consideration of education and policy issues pertaining to psychopharmacology, behavioral toxicology, and substance abuse.

Now back to the beginning. In the initial newsletter of the Division of Behavioral Pharmacology The Needle, Murray Jarvik wrote:

One of the main functions of our division will be to encourage research into the behavioral effects of drugs. If certain organizations have been overenthusiastic in their expectations in the past of psychological miracles from drugs, we would like to prevent the converse reaction of rejection. One of the ways we can heighten interest in our field is to have a successful scientific program at the American Psychological Association Convention and I am appealing to members to contribute papers for the next meeting.

Note that the chairpersons of the Division 28 symposia presented at our first APA convention included: Joe Brady, John Boren, Peter Carlton, Conan Kornetsky, and Harley Hansen. The original group that forged the Division of Behavioral Pharmacology was looking for a means to heighten interest and resources in a field of research that endeavored to better understand human behavior through studying the effects of drugs on behavior, which consequently offered the opportunity to better understand the effects of drugs via use of behavior. Right from the beginning, the potential for application of the knowledge gained from behavioral research on drugs was evident and acknowledged.

Unfortunately, a Division newsletter apparently was not published between 1968 and 1972 (perhaps because members thought it a waste of time to read ramblings such as mine). During that time, we became the Division of Psychopharmacology; why or how that came about, I am unsure but I plan to find out. I would guess the Division wanted to ensure that all psychologists conducting research related to the interplay of drugs and behavior would not be excluded, and maybe to more clearly indicate the Division’s interest in the application of drugs to modify behavior. In any event, in 1973, the newsletter reappeared under the editorial leadership of Travis Thompson. That issue of the newsletter created a “what’s happening in the laboratory” section that provided brief descriptions of important accomplishments from the major behavioral pharmacology laboratories across the country. For example, it noted John Falk’s report in Science on the use of schedule-induced polydipsia to produce physical dependence on alcohol in the rat.

In 1978, Bob Schuster, then president, headlined the newsletter with an important milestone for our field. Don MacMillan was named the Chair of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (which I’m proud to say is my new home). Having a behavioral pharmacologist appointed to such a position in a medical school not only acknowledged the great work of Dr. MacMillan, it demonstrated the respect and importance of the volume of work being done by our colleagues.

Linda Dykstra and Bob Balster’s newsletter columns in 1989 touched on a number of issues that eerily resemble what could be topics of this year’s column. Linda discussed the problems caused by animal rights activists for those conducting research with animals, in particular mentioning that Ron Wood’s lab was under attack. Linda noted that we were not alone in this fight, and that the APA Science Directorate and NIDA were aggressively addressing these issues at the political level. Linda encouraged Division members to take an active role in supporting and countering this attack on our science. For those who are not aware, Division 28 leadership continues to deal with this unremitting issue. We recently took an active role against the creation of a new APA Division of Human-Animal Studies, in part because of concerns about its potential impact on the use of animals in our scientific teaching and research (see the Council of Representatives report in this issue). Again, it was great to receive support from the Science Directorate and others when confronting this issue.

Linda also discussed the Division’s efforts and impact on the pending issue of psychologists obtaining prescription privileges. Seventeen years later we remain involved with this issue, as the original training curriculum that was created with much guidance from our members, e.g. Marlyne Kilbey, Bob Balster, Frank Holloway, will be revisited by an APA task force this coming year. As with any curricula, they are a work in progress and must be reviewed periodically as research and clinical experience continue to change the discipline and practice of psychopharmacology. Our Division’s role in that process will be to work to maintain the high standards of education and performance described in the current psychopharmacology curriculum. As the scientific division whose mission is to further the understanding of drugs on behavior, we should have much to say about the necessary elements of training that will ensure that psychologists can safely and effectively prescribe psychoactive medications.

In 1989, Bob Balster discussed the importance of members taking an active role to influence federal funding for our research. He reminded us how lobbying for Dr. Schuster for NIDA Director became a critical success for behavioral research on issues of drug abuse. With the current climate in 2 Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse News Washington, D.C., I would remind you again using Dr. Balster’s words, “It is essential that, as scientists, educators, and concerned clinicians, we get involved in seeing that the financial resources needed for this effort are forthcoming.”

This brings us into the 1990s and to our last name change. In August 1990, Bob Balster proposed that the Division change its name to Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse.In his 1991 newsletter, Klaus Miczek discussed this change, indicating that a large part of our membership’s interests were represented by issues of substance abuse, and as such, inclusion of this term in our name would provide a more accurate and visible representation of our interests and mission. Again, inclusiveness and integration appeared to be the theme for further advancing our science.

With this, I’ll end by offering a few last comments. First, I am thankful to the membership for electing me President of Division 28. I was truly humbled by my journey through the past as it revealed a list of predecessors whose accomplishments and contributions to the field were and continue to be extraordinary. Amazingly, many of the early leaders of our Division continue to not only be some of the most productive researchers, they also continue to serve the Division and represent our field of research to the greater community. I strongly encourage each of you to read through the archives of our Division. I think you will find them, as I did, personally relevant and inspiring, as you will surely note contributions associated with persons, places, or research of personal significance to you. I hope each of you will maintain heightened awareness of the issues that affect our field and thus our professional endeavors. Strive to make time for responding to these issues by providing service to our Division or taking action through other avenues. Also, please consider contributing each year to the success of our scientific program at the national APA convention. By participating in these activities, you will be showing appreciation for the time and effort devoted by former and current Division leaders that fostered a field of research and application in which we can all take pride.

Hope to see y’all in New Orleans!

Alan J. Budney
President, Division of
Psychopharmacology
and Substance Abuse