STATEMENT OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
OF THE PHILIPPINES (PAP) ON THE (MIS)USE OF PSYCHOLOGY
IN THE CURRENT ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN
The Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP)* considers some recent occurrences in the current electoral campaigns as an affront to psychologists and to psychology as a discipline and profession. In particular, partisan individuals and media practitioners have not only presented to the public fraudulent psychological reports, but have also made inaccurate statements about different aspects of the practice of psychology and the nature of psychological functioning. These irresponsible actuations have dangerous long-term effects on efforts of Filipino psychologists and other mental health professionals to address the psychological wellbeing of Filipinos. In this regard, the PAP would like to respond to and clarify some of the issues raised as a result of these political events.
First, the PAP denounces the release of the results of psychological tests or assessment to media and the public at large. In accordance with the PAP Code of Ethics, the results of psychological tests or assessment cannot be released to the media or the public or to any person other than the client. Any reputable individual psychologist or psychological organization ensures the practice of confidentiality and that the results of psychological tests or assessment are only shared with the client. Psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that information to be disclosed will not be misused, misunderstood or misinterpreted to infringe on human rights, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Second, the PAP denounces the suggestions made by politicians, media practitioners, and others to force political candidates to take psychological tests or assessment. In accordance with the PAP Code of Ethics, individuals cannot be subjected to psychological tests or assessment without their informed consent. Any reputable individual psychologist or psychological organization ensures that informed consent is acquired from the client before conducting psychological tests.
Third, the PAP denounces the insinuation that people who see a psychologist or any mental health professional is “abnormal” or “permanently debilitated”. The PAP condemns the insinuation that depression is a permanent disability; and the use of words like “abnoy” , "sira ang ulo"and “may diperensiya sa utak” to label individuals. These irresponsible statements and similar acts perpetuate a profound lack of understanding of psychological concepts, of the nature of psychological problems and dysfunctions, and of the nature of psychological health and wellbeing.
The PAP would like to stress to politicians, to media practitioners, and to the public at large that seeing a psychologist or any mental health professional does not make a person “abnormal”. Seeing a psychologist means ensuring our mental health and psychological wellbeing.
Board of Directors
Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP)
1 May 2010
*Note: The Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP), a professional organization of psychologists founded in 1962, is committed to the promotion of excellence in the teaching, research, and practice of psychology. It is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose national membership includes teachers, researchers, and practitioners of psychology. Its members adhere to the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists which recognizes that “ethics is at the core of every discipline."
I am an “ex” scientist. I have over 100 publications in the field of materials science and physics. Many of these publications are in peer reviewed journals such as The Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Materials Research Society Journal and Journal of Applied Physics. I have sat on committees that review papers for these journals. I have worked at the following national laboratories: NIST, Oak Ridge (site X) and Brookhaven National Laboratory. I have spent 10 years living off of federally funded research. I have written winning proposals for government funding in the 10’s of millions of dollars. In short, I am very well aware of the process of getting and keeping funding and getting papers published in peer reviewed publications.
I have seen papers (perfectly good, well researched) papers rejected for publication for the following reasons:
1. The paper went against prevailing theory on a topic.
2. The paper was submitted by a company that was a competitor for government funding.
3. The paper was submitted by a government agency that was a competitor of the reviewer’s agency.
4. The author of the paper was disliked by one of the reviewers.
This is how the funding process works:
1. You determine what the latest ‘hot’ topic is (global warming, ceramic superconductivity, stealth technology).
2. You write your proposal to fund the work you’ve been doing for years in your area but you slant it towards the hot topic.
3. You almost “prove” that the above hot topic is effected in a way that is positive toward your research.
4. You write a follow-on proposal where you state that the really big break-through will occur in the next funding cycle.
5. Oh, and you try to partner with entities that always get government funding.
It works like this: You study frogs in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Nobody wants to fund the study of frogs. Why would they? So in the early 80’s you write your proposal to study the effect of the hole in the ozone layer on the frogs. The mid 80’s your try to figure out how to write a proposal on frogs and missile defense but give up. In the 90’s you write proposals on how frog pee can help certain forms of cancer. You partner with NIH on this because they are getting lots of funding, being the ‘hot’ agency. You both know that the results are useless from the get go but you do it anyway. In the late 90’s you write proposals on how frogs from South Dakota can be used to detect nerve gas as part of the Global War on Terrorism. You routinely reject papers to the Journal of Herpetology that claim that five lined skinks can detect nerve gas by their tails falling off. In the 2000’s you are awarded grants to study the decline of frog populations in the Black Hills due to global warming, despite the fact the frogs were there through the last dozen ice ages and that they’ve survived eight periods since the last ice age where the temperature was much warmer than now. You know that the frog population is declining because the government is leasing the land to cattle ranchers and the cows are crapping in the water but you don’t really care because you’re now just a few years away from retirement and you don’t want to work at Burger King.
