Jean Maria Arrigo, PhD, spent a decade fighting back against APA's decision to allow psychologists to serve as consultants for national security-related interrogations during the George W. Bush administration's Global War on Terror. "I've spent 10 years of my life that I wish I could have back," says Arrigo, an independent social psychologist and oral historian who focuses on ethics and national security issues.
In recognition of her efforts, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) gave Arrigo its 2015 Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award in February. The award, which recognizes scientists, engineers or their organizations for exemplary action, honors Arrigo's "courage and persistence in advocating for ethical behavior among her fellow psychologists and the importance of international human rights standards and against torture."
At the start of the February meeting of the APA Council of Representatives, APA President Susan H. McDaniel, PhD, congratulated Arrigo on receiving the award. Arrigo serves on the council as a representative of Div. 48 (Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence: Peace Psychology).
In 2005, APA named Arrigo to the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) charged with developing ethical guidelines for psychologists involved in national security-related detentions and interrogations. Arrigo tried unsuccessfully to broaden the task force's mission to focus on whether APA should declare participation in coercive interrogations incompatible with psychology's ethics. The task force's report concluded that psychologists' involvement would help to keep interrogations safe, legal, ethical and effective.
When Arrigo realized the report was not the promised first step toward the issuance of further ethical guidance, she went public with her concerns and began advocating against APA's policy and the task force's legitimacy. Her efforts contributed to APA's decision to commission an independent review (referred to as the Hoffman Report) to evaluate allegations of collusion between APA leaders and Defense Department psychologists in the development of ethical guidelines for psychologists. The Hoffman Report found that key members of APA leadership and staff colluded with military psychologists so that ethical guidance for psychologists involved in interrogations would be no more restrictive than existing Defense Department guidelines.
In 2013, APA rescinded the PENS task force report policy that explicitly recognized a consultative role for psychologists in national security interrogations. Last year, APA took further action by adopting a policy that prohibits psychologists from assisting in national security-related detainee interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf.
"The real significance of the award is that a large and distinguished scientific association has validated key findings of the Hoffman report and recognizes that the moral and ethical issues of APA are very significant to all of science," says Arrigo.
— Rebecca A. Clay
