Open letter to Sharon Brehm, President of the American Psychological Association
from Brad Olson, Ph.D., Stephen Soldz, Ph.D., Steven Reisner, Ph.D.
June 6, 2007
Sharon Brehm, Ph.D.
President
American Psychological Association
Dear President Brehm:
We write you as psychologists concerned about the participation of our profession in abusive interrogations of national security detainees at
Guantánamo, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at the so-called CIA "black sites."
Our profession is founded on the fundamental ethical principle, enshrined as Principle A in our Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct: "Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm." Irrefutable evidence now shows that
psychologists participating in national security interrogations have systematically violated this principle. A recently declassified August 2006
report by the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General (OIG) describes in detail how psychologists from the military's Survival,
Evasion Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program were instructed to apply their expertise in abusive interrogation techniques to interrogations
being conducted by the DoD throughout all three theaters of the War on Terror (Guantánamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq). SERE is the US military's
program designed to train Special Forces and other troops at high risk of capture to resist "breaking" during harsh interrogations conducted by a
ruthless enemy. During SERE training, trainees are subjected to extensive abusive treatment, including sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation,
isolation, cultural and sexual humiliation, and, in some cases, simulated drowning ("waterboarding"). By SERE's own admission, these techniques
are classified as torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
The OIG report details a number of trainings and consultations provided by SERE psychologists to psychologists and other personnel involved in
interrogations, including those on the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCT), generally composed of and headed by psychologists. The
OIG confirms repeated press accounts over the last two years that SERE techniques were "reverse engineered" by SERE psychologists in
consultation with the BSCT psychologists and others, to develop and standardize a regime of psychological torture used by interrogators at
Guantánamo, and in Iraq and Afghanistan. The OIG report states: Counterresistance techniques [SERE] were introduced because personnel
believed that interrogation methods used were no longer effective in obtaining useful information from some detainees."
The OIG report also clearly reveals the central role of psychologists in these processes: "On September 16, 2002, the Army Special Operations
Command and the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency [the military unit containing SERE] co-hosted a SERE psychologist conference at Fort Bragg
for JTF-170 [the military component responsible for interrogations at Guantánamo] interrogation personnel. The Army's Behavioral Science
Consultation Team from Guantánamo Bay also attended the conference. Joint Personnel Recovery Agency briefed JTF-170 representatives
on the exploitation techniques and methods used in resistance (to interrogation) training at SERE schools. The JTF-170 personnel understood that
they were to become familiar with SERE training and be capable of determining which SERE information and techniques might be useful in
interrogations at Guantánamo. Guantánamo Behavioral Science Consultation Team personnel understood that they were to review documentation
and standard operating procedures for SERE training in developing the standard operating procedure for the JTF-170, if the command approved
those practices. The Army Special Operations Command was examining the role of interrogation support as a 'SERE Psychologist competency
area'" (p. 25, emphasis added).
It is now indisputable that psychologists and psychology were directly and officially responsible for the development and migration of abusive
interrogation techniques, techniques which the International Committee of the Red Cross has labeled "tantamount to torture." Reports of
psychologists' (along with other health professionals') participation in abusive interrogations surfaced more than two years ago.
While other health professional associations expressed dismay when it was reported that their members had participated in these abuses and took
principled stands against their members' direct participation in interrogations, the APA undertook a campaign to support such involvement. In
2005, APA President Ron Levant created the PENS Task Force to assess the ethics of such participation. Six of the nine voting psychologist
members selected for the task force were uniformed and civilian personnel from military and intelligence agencies, most with direct connections to
national security interrogations. Perhaps most problematic, it is clear from the OIG Report that three of the PENS members were directly in the
chain of command translating SERE techniques into harsh interrogation tactics. Although we cannot know exactly what each of these individuals
did, their presence in the chain of command is troubling. One such task Force member is Colonel Morgan Banks who, according to his Task Force
biography "is the senior Army Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Psychologist, responsible for the training and oversight of all
Army SERE Psychologists, who include those involved in SERE training.... He provides technical support and consultation to all Army
psychologists providing interrogation support.... His initial duty assignment as a psychologist was to assist in establishing the Army's first
permanent SERE training program involving a simulated captivity experience…. In November 1991 [sic: 2001], he deployed to Afghanistan,
where he spent four months over the winter of 2001/2002 at Bagram Airfield, supporting combat operations against Al Qaida and Taliban
fighters."
Thus, according to the OIG report, Colonel Banks had direct command responsibility for the SERE psychologists training, consulting, and
participating in interrogations and provided "support and consultation" to other psychologists involved in abusive interrogations. In fact, reading
the OIG report renders it difficult to imagine that Colonel Banks was not himself directly involved in developing and/or implementing these
abusive activities.
The OIG report appears to confirm what has been suspected at least since the publication in July 2005 of Jane Mayer's New Yorker article "The
Experiment": that Colonel Banks was intimately involved in the teaching and development of the abusive interrogation tactics documented by the
International Committee of the Red Cross, and now by the Department of Defense, as being used at Guantánamo.
Colonel Larry James, a second PENS member, "was the Chief Psychologist for the Joint Intelligence Group at GTMO, Cuba" (PENS Task Force
member biographies) starting in January 2003. Col. Larry James has often been cited by Gerald Koocher, Stephen Behnke, and others, as the one
who 'cleaned up' Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. The OIG report, however, makes it clear that Guantánamo BSCTs played an essential role in
transforming SERE techniques into standard operating interrogation procedure; that the Commander of Guantánamo detainee operations requested
official approval for the use of these torture techniques in October, 2002; and that permission was granted by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in
December 2002. Additionally, as stated in his PENS biography, in 2003 James "was the Chief Psychologist for the Joint Intelligence Group at
GTMO, Cuba." In 2004, James was Director, Behavioral Science Unit, Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib.
It should be noted that that in 2004, according to many sources, Gen. Geoffrey Miller, Guantánamo Commander, too, went from Guantánamo to
Iraq, and brought the SERE techniques with him. James was the commander of the BSCTs at the time the FBI and other law enforcement agents
were reporting that severe abuses were occurring at Guantánamo. The FBI and other Criminal Investigative Task Force agents reporting these
abuses referred to them as “SERE” and “counter-resistance” tactics in documents obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act.
Yet another task Force member, Captain Bryce Lefever, had previously been a SEREpsychologist where he supervised "personnel undergoing
intensive exposure to enemy interrogation, torture, and exploitation techniques." He "was deployed as the Joint Special Forces Task Force
psychologist to Afghanistan in 2002,” presumably replacing Col. Banks who had previously held that role. Capt. Lefever “lectured to
interrogators and was consulted on various interrogation techniques" (PENS Task Force member biographies). That is, he had the requisite SERE
background and it appears that he was involved in interrogations in Afghanistan at the time that, as the OIG report reveals, the abusive SERE
based techniques were being utilized through Special Forces units.
In addition to these three members who were directly in the military chain of command responsible for employing the SERE techniques as
interrogation tactics, another member of the PENS Task Force, Scott Shumate, stated in a conference biographical statement that "From April
2001 until May of 2003 he was the chief operational psychologist for the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center (CTC).... He has been with several of
the key apprehended terrorists." The CTC, according to press reports, is responsible for managing the CIA’s Black Site facilities where the top 14
Al Qaeda operatives in US custody were initially held and interrogated. The "key apprehended terrorists" that Shumate refers to are very likely
those Al Qaeda operatives subjected to the CIA's brutal "enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Thus, the available evidence strongly suggests that the PENS Task Force included a number of individuals who oversaw or directly participated in
torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment that is allegedly banned by the APA.
Not surprisingly, given its membership, the PENS Task Force report concluded that "[i]t is consistent with the APA Code of Ethics for
psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national security-related purposes...." The
Task Force report further echoed the Department of Defense cover story for employing BSCT psychologists: "While engaging in such
consultative and advisory roles entails a delicate balance of ethical considerations, doing so puts psychologists in a unique position to assist in
ensuring that such processes are safe and ethical for all participants."
Since the release of the PENS report, numerous articles in the press have documented that psychologists at Guantánamo and elsewhere have
utilized abusive SERE techniques on detainees. (Jane Meyer's New Yorker article appeared one week after the PENS report.) All the while, the
APA leadership has ignored the mounting evidence to the contrary and reiterated this flawed PENS premise, as you yourself did in response to
such an article in the Washington Monthly: "[t]he Association's position is rooted in our belief that having psychologists consult with
interrogation teams makes an important contribution toward keeping interrogations safe and ethical."
Every report of horrific abuses occurring at Guantánamo and elsewhere has not only cast doubt upon this basic premise of APA policy, these
reports have repeatedly highlighted psychologists' abuse of psychological knowledge for purposes of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Yet
the APA has never made any public attempt to investigate such reports. Even if certain psychologists attempted to "keep interrogations safe and
ethical," the OIG report demonstrates once and for all that BSCT and SERE psychologists, among others, were responsible for the development,
migration, and perpetration of abuses.
It is time for the APA to acknowledge that the central premise of its years-long policy of condoning and encouraging psychologist participation in
interrogations is wrong. It has now been revealed by the DoD itself that, rather than assuring safety, psychologists were central to the abuse. This
remains true even if some psychologists made efforts to reduce such harm during their involvement in these interrogation contexts at some point in
time.
It is critical that APA take immediate steps to remedy the damage done to the reputation of the organization, to our ethical standards, to the field
of psychology, and to human rights in this age where they are under concerted attack. The following steps will begin the process of correcting this
egregious error by the organization and its leadership. We urgently recommend that:
1. The President of the APA acknowledge errors and abuses and chart a new
direction re-emphasizing human rights. In light of the recent revelations, you, as
President of the APA, should issue a clear public statement that acknowledges the
errors made by APA, in both policy and public statements, and abuses perpetrated
by psychologists; you should call on the association to go in a new direction, giving
primary emphasis to human rights concerns in forging policy around ethics and
national security.
2. The APA Board of Directors and Ethics Committee endorse the APA Moratorium on
psychologist participation in interrogations of foreign detainees. It is critical to
immediately disengage psychologists from any direct or supervisory participation in
interrogations of individual detainees. Such a step would do much to bring the APA in
line with the positions adopted some time ago by the American Psychiatric
Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Nurses Association.
Thus, the APA leadership should support and the Council of Representatives must, at
the August Convention, pass the Moratorium on Psychologist Involvement in
Interrogations at US Detention Centers for Foreign Detainees proposed by Dr.
Neil Altman and scheduled for a vote at Council.
3. The APA Board of Directors encourage, support, and cooperate with the Senate
investigations of detainee treatment. It is essential that the APA support and
cooperate fully with the announced investigation of the Senate Armed Services
Committee (SASC) into the role of SERE in the creation of abusive interrogation
strategies, as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee's announced investigation
into the CIA's handling of detainees in their custody. In fact, the APA Board of
Directors should do what it can to expedite this and other external, non-partisan
investigations of all localities that utilize BSCT psychologists.
4. The APA Board of Directors commence a neutral third-party investigation of its
own involvement, and that of APA staff, in APA-military conflicts of interest. It is
essential that the APA membership and the concerned public develop an in-depth
understanding of how and why the APA accepted a rationale for psychologist
involvement in interrogations that has been revealed to have been advanced by
involved psychologists, and which permitted their continued participation and
supervision of abusive interrogation processes. The concept of "legal, ethical, safe,
and effective" has been exposed as a euphemism for psychologist oversight of
abuse; these activities can only be considered "ethical" because the APA Ethics Code
(Standard 1.02) was rewritten in 2002 to define complying with any law or military
regulation as "ethical."
The membership has a right to know why, in the face of continually emerging sets of tangible evidence suggesting that the its policy was flawed
and that psychologists were systematically employing expert psychological knowledge for purposes of abuse, the APA leadership refused to
investigate, and continued to give cover for these abuses. (According to APA Ethics Director, Dr. Stephen Behnke, the BSCTs attach a copy of
the PENS report to their training manuals.) Therefore, it is critical that an independent investigation be launched – conducted by individuals well-
known for their commitment to human rights – into the development of APA policy in this area, and into the broader issues that likely
contributed to a series of suspicious procedural activities. Among the issues this investigation must examine are:
a) the numerous procedural irregularities alleged to have occurred during the
PENS process;
b) the role of the military and intelligence agencies in the formation and
functioning of the PENS Task Force;
c) the reasons the APA and its leadership have systematically ignored the
accumulating evidence that psychologists participating in interrogations are
contributing to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, rather than
helping to prevent it;
d) the overall nexus of close ties between the APA staff/leadership and the
military and intelligence agencies, ties that may have contributed to a climate
that permits undo influence of military and intelligence agencies in the
creation of these policies and that encourages turning a blind eye to abuse;
e) the transformation of the APA Ethics Code, from one that protects
psychologists' ethical conduct when such conduct conflicts with law and
military regulations to one that protects psychologists who follow unethical
law and military regulations.
Only such an investigatory process can restore the faith of the membership and the broader public in the APA and in the profession of
psychology. To fail to act now would be to continue an organizational policy that maintains and protects psychologists' roles as the architects of
what can only be interpreted as a torture paradigm; one that has intentionally violated the Geneva Conventions, our nation's values, and our
professional ethics.
We look forward to your affirmation, acceptance, and action in regard to this call for immediate steps to remedy this saddening situation for our
organization and our discipline.
Sincerely,
RELATED LINK: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/BrehmLetter/
===============================================================
from Leonard S. Rubenstein, JD, Executive Director, Physicians for Human Rights
June 14, 2007
Sharon Stephens Brehm, PhD, President
American Psychological Association.
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
Dear Dr. Brehm:
As you know, Physicians for Human Rights has been engaged in a long-term dialogue with the American Psychological Association over our
strenuous objections to the APA’s policy on psychologists and interrogations. PHR deeply respects and values the rich legacy of vital
contributions made by psychology and the APA to human health and well-being, and to human rights in particular. We also welcomed the policy
the Association passed last summer affirming the centrality of human rights for psychologists.
We have also been concerned that neither that policy, nor the PENS Task Force report and recommendations, adequately assure guidance to
psychologists in interrogation settings. New revelations from the Department of Defense about the role of psychologists in designing and
implementing interrogation methods that amount to torture increase the urgency for action, particularly a clear statement that psychologists
should not support these and related techniques in any way.
The revelations come from a recently declassified report by the Pentagon’s Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”).1 The report confirms that
psychologists with the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (“SERE”) program, in collaboration with the Guantanamo interrogation
command and the Army Special Forces Command, transformed torture methods used in “resistance training” for US personnel into
procedures for interrogations at Guantanamo. It appears likely, moreover, that at least one and possibly more of the PENS Task Force members
were involved in these activities.
These methods include stress positions, prolonged sleep deprivation, isolation, “noise stress” (including sensory bombardment with loud music
and strobe lights), sexual humiliation, forced nudity, exposure to extreme cold, exploitation of 1"Review of DoD-Directed Investigations of
Detainee Abuse," Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General. Accessed June 7, 2007 at detainees’ fears and phobias, and much more.
\ In a September 21, 2006 letter to Senator John McCain, the APA’s then-president, Dr. Gerald Koocher, joined other mental health experts in
warning that such practices “can have a devastating impact on the victim’s physical and mental health” and condemned them as “torture and cruel,
inhuman, and degrading treatment.”
According to the Pentagon report, SERE psychologists trained Guantanamo interrogators and other military psychologists on “Behavioral Science
Consultation Teams”, or “BSCTs”, in the use of these interrogation methods. BSCT psychologists were tasked with transforming abusive SERE
methods into standard operating procedure at Guantanamo and, at least twice, SERE psychologists were sent to Guantanamo to teach “SERE
counter-resistance techniques” to interrogation teams. SERE methods were brought to Afghanistan and to Iraq, where SERE psychologists taught
the techniques to interrogators with Task Force-20, a special forces unit, which also adopted them as standard operating procedure. SERE
psychologists were even authorized “to actively participate in ‘one or two demonstration’ interrogations” with Task Force-20 personnel.
These revelations by the Pentagon, confirming that military psychologists served as chief architects of torture, demand forceful and definitive
action by the APA, particularly to reject these interrogation methods and prohibit any role of psychologists in designing, implementing, training,
or observing their use or evaluating detainees subjected to them. Reiteration of the Association’s general policy against torture and cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment is not enough. The psychological profession and the nation as a whole are now looking to the APA for
more – for explicit, operational guidance that will help put an end to the abusive SERE interrogation methods and to psychologists’ involvement
in their use. More broadly, they look to the APA for concrete measures that will fully protect psychology and its practitioners from being used to
“break” detainees down.
We therefore urge that, at a minimum, the APA immediately take the following steps:
1. Adopt an organizational policy that explicitly condemns all of the following interrogation methods as torture and other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment and affirming that it is unethical to participate in any way, directly or indirectly, in their use.
These methods include:
• Mock executions
• “Water-boarding” or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation
• Threats of harm or death to the detainee or a member of his or her family
• Isolation used for the purpose of interrogation
• Sensory deprivation (particularly of light and auditory stimuli)
• Sensory bombardment (particularly with loud noise or music, bright lights, or flashing strobe lights)
• Hooding
• Sleep deprivation
• Forced nakedness
• Sexual humiliation
• Cultural or religious humiliation
• Exploitation or exacerbation of fears, phobias or psychopathology such as anxiety or depression
• Stress positions (including “short shackling” and prolonged standing)
• Use of animals, including dogs, to instill fear
• Physical assault, including slapping and shaking
• Exposure to extreme heat or cold
• Induced hypothermia
• The threatened use of any of these techniques
• Use of psychotropic drugs or any other mind-altering substances in support of Interrogations
2. Adopt an organizational policy calling on all relevant branches and agencies within the US government – including Congress, the
Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency – to explicitly prohibit the use of these methods in all interrogations and
informing them that in any event psychologists are prohibited from participating in them.
3. Open an investigation into the role of psychologists, whether APA members or not, in the use of the techniques listed above.
4. Urge all relevant oversight bodies, including the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, to engage in comprehensive
investigations and to hold public hearings into all aspects of the development, authorization, and use of these interrogation methods by
military and intelligence personnel.
Adoption of these recommendations would be an important first step toward ending the use of methods amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment by US interrogators, as well as psychologists’ complicity in designing or implementing them. In our view, however,
explicitly prohibiting psychologists’ participation in these techniques will not fully protect psychological ethics from the risks inherent in the
interrogation setting. We believe the only way to create a fully ethical policy, consistent with the principle of minimizing harm, is for the APA to
prohibit the direct participation of psychologists in any individual interrogations. The nature of the interrogation process is such that any
participation invites the possibility of serious ethical breaches. A fundamental purpose of interrogation, even when lawful, is to break the
resistance of unwilling or uncooperative subjects. In the stressful and isolated national security interrogation environment, where the pressure to
intensify “counter-resistance” measures only increases over time, psychologists have little or no protection from becoming complicit in the
infliction of psychological distress, pain, and suffering.
We therefore suggest the following ethical guidance:
Psychologists do not participate directly in the interrogation of an individual prisoner
or detainee. Direct participation includes being present in the interrogation room;
asking questions; suggesting questions; providing any advice, consultation, or
assistance regarding the use of interrogation techniques with a specific interrogation
subject; or monitoring an interrogation for the purpose of offering advice,
consultation, evaluation or assistance in the use of techniques with a particular
subject.
Psychologists do not offer general advice or training, research, experimentation,
facilitation, or any other general assistance, outside the context of an interrogation of
a specific subject, regarding use of interrogation methods that are intended to, or
that the psychologist has reason to believe will, result in increased levels of
psychological distress or harm to the subject.
Consistent with these recommendations, PHR also continues to support the resolution currently before the Council of Representatives calling for
a “Moratorium on Psychologist Involvement in Interrogations at US Detention Centers for Foreign Detainees.” We believe that all these
recommendations, taken together, can help restore the legacy the American psychological community expects and deserves.
We would be happy to meet with you at a convenient time to discuss these matters further. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
===============================================================
from the National Consortium of Torture Treatment Programs:
June 26, 2007
American Psychological Association.
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
Dear Drs. Brehm and Behnke:
The undersigned are 58 psychologists and members of APA who are also employees and volunteers for organizations affiliated with the National
Consortium of Torture Treatment Programs (NCTTP). NCTTP is a growing consortium with 36 member organizations. As practitioners who
work to alleviate suffering resulting from torture, we know from our professional experience that such suffering is often severe and lasts a lifetime.
We have learned from our work that this suffering is mainly psychological in nature and that it is no less severe when it is inflicted by means of
non-physical torture, i.e. in the form of isolation, sensory deprivation and disorientation, self-inflicted pain techniques, sleep deprivation,
humiliation and other forms of mental cruelty. While some of us have had exchanges with you on the subject of psychologists’ participation in
coercive interrogations, the time has come that we now speak clearly and in a unified voice.
Torture is corrosive to the society that practices it and destroys its institutions. Citizens lose faith in their institutions and no longer trust their
neighbors or their appointed leaders. We are witnessing this corrosive effect on our own professional organization because psychologists have
participated in the interrogation of enemy combatants by means amounting to torture. To make matters worse, it is appearing increasingly likely
that some of the same colleagues and their allies were then appointed as a majority to the investigating body into the ethics of these interrogation
practices, the PENS Task Force. The Task Force’s proceedings have now been called into question. A case book was promised but never issued.
Specific factual inquiries into psychologists’ participation in abuses have been sidestepped time and again. The perception is becoming
widespread that APA’s leadership has employed a strategy of listening and recording the voices of dissent without any intention of letting it
affect de facto policy.
Some of us have already left APA, others are withholding dues, and still others are simply growing more impatient and frustrated. We all believe,
however, that you must initiate a reversal of the current collaboration with abusive interrogation practices, which violate APA policy as ratified in
the 2006 Resolution Against Torture. It has been alleged that the 2002 Ethics Code revision, found in standard 1.02, permits psychologists to
follow any law or regulation, including military regulations, even if these otherwise violate the Ethics code. If this is the case, it must be changed; if
it is not the case, we urge you to say so publicly and unambiguously. We urge you to hold hearings on the exact nature of the collaboration that
has been reported, and until then to unambiguously declare an end to all cooperation with detainee interrogation practices. Otherwise, we foresee
an indelible stain on our profession’s reputation, amounting to the exact opposite of Dr. Brehm’s goal of raising the positive profile of
psychologists. At stake is an exodus of membership and a lasting split of the profession. As long as APA offers only resolutions against torture
but remains unwilling to make a change, such resolutions will ring hollow. Having worked on the subject of torture for many combined years, we
have learned this: the ghosts will not go away until a full reckoning and a change in course have been accomplished. Nothing that is built on cruelty
can last. Please let us know if you would like our help in bringing about the change that must occur.
Sincerely,
Adeyinka M. Akinsulure-Smith, Ph.D.
Manuel Balboa, Ph.D.
Pamela Braswell, Psy.D.
Jules Burstein, Ph.D.
Jane Christmas, Psy.D.
Mary Cogan, Ph.D.
Nancy Colburn, Ph.D.
Esther Ehrensaft, Ph.D.
Mary Fabri, Psy.D.
Erika Falk, Psy.D.
Ruth Fallenbaum, Ph.D.
Mohammad Farrag, Ph.D.
Gaithri Fernando, Ph.D.
Steve Frankel, Ph.D.
David Gangsei, Ph.D.
Rosa Garcia-Peltoniemi, Ph.D.
Mary Gardner, Psy.D.
Carlos Gonsalves, Ph.D.
Paul Good, Ph.D.
William Gorman, Ph.D.
Sonali Gupta, Psy.D.
Monika Gutkowska, Psy.D.
Karen L. Hanscom, Ph.D.
Sam Hamburg, Ph.D.
Robert Heavner, Ph.D.
Maria Hess, Ph.D.
Kip Hillman, Psy.D.
Maria Holden, Psy.D.
Uwe Jacobs, Ph.D.
Cheryl Jacques, Psy.D.
Jeffrey Kaye, Ph.D.
Kiana Keihani, Ph.D.
Alex Kitzes, Ph.D.
Loren Krane, Ph.D.
Daniel Litowski-DuCasa, Ed.D.
Adrienne McFadd, Ph.D.
Antonio Martinez, Ph.D.
Laura Mayorga, Ph.D.
Larry Miller, Ph.D.
Katja Mohr, Psy.D.
Susan Morton. Ph.D.
John Neafsey, Ph.D.
Ana Noles, Psy.D.
Katherine Norgard, Ph.D.
Judy Okawa, Ph.D.
Harvey Peskin, Ph.D.
Maria Prendes-Lintel, Ph.D.
Ginger Rhodes, Ph.D.
Suzanne Rosen, Psy.D.
Jaime Ross, Ph.D.
Alice Shaw, Ph.D.
Hawthorne Smith, Ph.D.
Judith Wilson, Ph.D.
Lucy Wilson, Ph.D.
Jeanne Wolff-Bernstein, Ph.D.
Larry Wornian, Ph.D.
Sandra G. Zakowski, Ph.D.