In light of the abundant resources of this organization, we might ask what is being done for science – especially because the journal operations produce such a large proportion of APA’s income. In the Council meetings this question is raised by representatives from the science divisions of APA. One gets the clear message from these representatives that there is concern over the question of how important science is to APA. My impression is that the Council members as a whole are very sympathetic to science, and support it. At the same time, there are many different constituencies in APA, and they are each working hard for their own interests. During the two years I have been on Council, lots of our discussions have focused on issues related to social justice, diversity, and clinical practice. The good news is that when scientific evidence is presented on these issues, there is a very favorable response. The bad news is that we have discussed few issues that directly benefit scientific psychology.

What more might the science divisions do to better use APA’s considerable resources to benefit science, especially in light of the respect for science in the Council? I think a couple of concrete steps are possible. First, we have to make sure that the APA members in the science divisions always vote in the APA presidential election, and do not throw away their ballots. If all scientists in APA vote there will be a science person as president of APA in most years. This is especially important because most of the other members of the Board of Directors of APA are likely to be practitioners, given that they are elected by the Council (where science divisions are now in a minority). Second, we need to support Steve Breckler, APA’s head of the Science Directorate. Steve has lots of ideas about how science can be better organized and more effective in APA, and we need to work with him. Third, the science divisions should decide what concrete things they want from APA, and have their representatives draft Council motions to this effect. In the two years I have been on Council there have been almost no motions, out of hundreds considered, that directly benefit science. Council motions are a major way we ask for things from APA, and we have not done a good job of asking. The science divisions should be crafting motions to present to the Council of Representatives. Finally, we need to send people to Council who are articulate and passionate; they can make quite a difference in how APA uses its resources.

The days are gone when scientists were in firm control of APA. However, the organization has tremendous resources, much of which come from the science activities involved in publishing (authoring, editing, and reviewing), and it is possible that significant money and personnel will be used for the benefit of science if we play our cards right. I have been surprised at the degree of pro-science sentiment among Council members, including practitioners. We need to harness this sentiment through political action so that a significant amount of APA’s resources are used to help scientific psychology.