Impact of research on public policy

By Richard McCarty
APA Executive Director for Science

APA is a major publisher of scientific and professional journals and scholarly books. By any measure, the publishing enterprise at APA is something in which all members can take a large measure of pride. Indeed, if one reviews the impact factor ratings for psychology journals throughout the world, APA dominates.

One of the most influential APA journals is Psychological Bulletin, edited by Professor Nancy Eisenberg of Arizona State University. Most of the remaining 36 APA journals are devoted to specific topical areas. The editors, associate editors and editorial board members of these journals perform a valuable service for the discipline of psychology through their tireless efforts to evaluate manuscripts and accept only the best articles for publication in the journals.

APA journals have never hesitated to publish controversial findings. Indeed, how could it be otherwise? Many psychologists address topics in their research that are hot button issues for a variety of groups. A partial list would include intimate relationships, development of sexual orientation, behavioral interventions for prevention of HIV transmission, the causes of racial prejudice, drug use and abuse in juveniles and effects of day care on child development. It is important to keep in mind that controversial research often advances a given field of inquiry even though the heat generated from reaction to the published findings may often be quite intense.

A case in point

Such is the case with an article that appeared in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin. The article, "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples," by Rind et al, has generated tremendous controversy over the past several months. Radio talk show host "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger, several members of the House of Representatives, the Traditional Values Coalition, the American Psychiatric Association and the Family Research Council have attacked APA for publishing the article (see related article on page 47).

Even worse has been the suggestion from these and other groups that APA supports the normalization of pedophilia. As one of my colleagues here at APA said just a few days ago, this attack on APA is a "bitter irony" given the many important and lasting contributions APA members and staff have made over many years relating to issues of child safety and child welfare. In particular, APA takes a backseat to no group in working to protect all children from sexual abuse through research, advocacy and provision of services.

Important lessons

The purpose of this column is not to attack or to defend the methodology or conclusions of the article that was published in Psychological Bulletin. I will leave it to experts in the field of child sexual abuse and meta-analysis and to the authors of the article to debate the issues. However, I think this most unpleasant controversy offers some important lessons for psychological scientists in the interplay between science and politics in the peer-review process.

At present, APA's peer-review process does not explicitly request information from reviewers regarding their opinions on the potential public policy implications of a given manuscript. To be sure, many empirical articles dealing with basic science topics may have little impact on policy-makers. However, many theoretical and review articles do have the potential to inform policy makers and the public on areas of national concern. We may be at a point when such feedback from reviewers is essential in preparing for press coverage of APA journal articles. Much of the effort of our Public Communications Office has been to encourage media coverage of APA journal articles. More recently, this office has been placed in the position of responding to attacks leveled at the Psychological Bulletin article mentioned above. When controversy erupts, it is difficult to contain and even more difficult to refute. The Internet has changed the nature of public discourse and now, the more advance notice our media office has about a given article, the better it can respond to criticisms.

Permit me to emphasize that this suggestion for the peer-review process in no way leads us down the path of avoiding the publication of controversial articles. Rather, it would position APA in such a way that the important findings of a given article are highlighted, and not the spin applied by an individual or a special interest group.

Science is a self-correcting enterprise. If by chance a flawed article does make its way through the peer-review system of any journal, commentaries should be submitted and evaluated through the peer-review system. Peer review is a lot like democracy. It isn't perfect, but it is the best system that we have.



Read our privacy statement and Terms of Use

Cover Page for this Issue

PsychNET®
© 1999 American Psychological Association

APA Home Page . Search . Site Map