Another psychologist, Cole Davis, has recently resigned from the British Psychological Society (BPS) over their ignoring of scientific integrity. His resignation letter submitted today for publication in the BPS Journal (The Psychologist) is below - but not yet published.
17 March 2008
To the British Psychological Society
Further to my resignation last year, the last straw being your encouragement of the appellation 'Chartered Scientist', available to people who do not necessarily embrace scientific methods:
I no longer accept the British Psychological Society's claim to be acting in the public interest, and support the recently declared stance of another ex-member. Although I personally do not need to use the term in order to make a living, I shall call myself a psychologist and will give any support to a body which can regulate psychology in a responsible manner.
Over the years it has become apparent that the BPS is not such an organisation.
formerly "Chartered Occupational Psychologist"
Davis previously wrote to the Psychologist in 2007 detailing BPS failure to uphold scientific integrity.
The BPS - value for money in the public service?
Published in The Psychologist, February 2007
The BPS regularly refers to its duty to the public when defending itself against i) accusations of failure to support its members, ii) ostentatious advertising of members under a cloud and iii) being over-expensive.
I no longer subscribe to such a defence. Three times, spread over some years, I have sought either support or guidance on ethical matters. On none of these occasions was I offered any.
In the last instance, when I told officials that I was being repeatedly and overtly pressurised to falsify research findings for a public project, I was told that 'we don't give legal advice' and that I should consult the Code of Ethics. Apart from the fact that there is little in the Code of Ethics about corruption, other than an urging of the practitioner to behave professionally, I don't see why some guidance was not forthcoming. I was in touch with members of the BPS with responsibility for regulations and ethics; if all that is necessary is already on the web site, then I think there is a certain amount of redundancy in the organisation.
In short, I don't think members' subscriptions are benefiting the public and I think reorganisation, rethinking and refunds are in order.
Chartered Occupational Psychologist, London NW2
See also the resignation of Lisa Blakemore Brown
. What of the regulatory body for doctors in the UK (The General Medical Council)? Do they have much real regard for honesty and for the integrity of science upon which our patients rely?Earlier
Labels: British Psychological Society