I've finally given in and turned on my mail to TIPS again,
despite my promise not to do it until I've brought my mail queue
under control. The reason is an urgent need to post, a
relapse to my old addiction. Is there a 12-step programme for
TIPS?
One of the things I want to post is the announcement of the
William James Award of the American Psychological Society for
2001 to Elizabeth Loftus, and especially, her acceptance speech,
It was awarded June 14th, 2001, and curiously, I couldn't find it
on the APS web site. My copy comes courtesy of the False Memory
Foundation July/August 2001 newsletter.
What I find particularly fascinating and also disturbing is her
description of the hatred her research has earned her. As she
notes in her speech, another current example is the shameful
attempt to silence those who would challenge the popular view of
child sexual abuse and its psychological effects. And Judith Rich
Harris, I understand, has been subjected to considerable
hostility (as some of the quotes on her web page show) for
questioning the accepted view of strong parental influence on
children. If you have big ideas and if they effectively argue
against conventional psychological wisdom, be prepared for grief,
it seems.
-Stephen Black
**********************************************************************
F M S F O U N D A T I O N N E W S L E T T E R (e-mail
edition)
July/August 2001 Vol 10 No 4
**********************************************************************
ELIZABETH LOFTUS RECEIVES AWARD
William James award 2001 from American Psychological Society
(APS)
"Elizabeth Loftus is an example of the rare scientist who is
instrumental both in advancing a scientific discipline and in
using that discipline to make critical contributions to society."
"Beginning in the mid-1970's, following acclaimed basic
research on the workings of semantic memory, she waded into
relatively uncharted waters, investigating the critical issues of
how and under what circumstances complex memories change, often
quite dramatically, over time. Her innovative yet highly rigorous
research on this topic brought her renewed praise in the
scientific community. At the same time however, she realized the
fundamental applications of her and related findings to the legal
system, particularly in understanding the circumstances under
which a sincere eyewitness may have misidentified an innocent
defendant. It is not hyperbole to say that in response to her
ingenious laboratory work and her ubiquitous public presence,
both the quality of basic memory research and the fairness of the
criminal justice system have advanced substantially."
"Over the past 15 years, Dr. Loftus's attention has turned to
a related but considerably more controversial issue, that of the
validity of "recovered memories" of childhood abuse. As a result
of her pioneering scientific work as well as her activity within
the legal system, society is gradually coming to realize that
such memories, compelling though they may seem when related by a
witness, are often a product of recent reconstructive memory
processes rather than of past objective reality. In bringing to
light these facts of memory, Dr. Loftus has joined the ranks of
other scientists, past and present, who have had the courage,
inspiration, and inner strength to weather the widespread scorn
and oppression that unfortunately but inevitably accompanies
clear and compelling scientific data that have the effrontery to
fly in the face of dearly held beliefs."
**********************************************************************
Acceptance Speech APS William James Fellow Award
ELIZABETH LOFTUS
June 14, 2001
Receiving this honor, the William James Fellow Award for
scientific achievement, could not have come at a more meaningful
or ironic time in my life. It has made me think about the purpose
of awards: what we give them for, what qualities of the
recipient or of his or her work we admire. And it has made me
think about the purpose of science, that ideally dispassionate,
empirical investigation of a particular set of questions.
For more than a decade, as I'm sure many of you know, I have
been pursued by the enemies I created by virtue of my research on
memory and my efforts to discredit recovered-memory therapy,
which has done so much harm to individuals and families. The
public thinks this epidemic is over. But many families have never
recovered, and many promulgators and victims of the
recovered-memory movement remain angry and vengeful. For so many
years, I have tried to understand their position, sympathize with
the emotionally disturbed young women whom I regard as victims of
misguided or misinformed therapists, and find common ground.
Now I realize that for these people, there may be little in
the way of common ground. I am their enemy -- scientific evidence
is their enemy -- and I will not be able to persuade them
otherwise, not with all the good data and good intentions in the
world. This was a terribly difficult realization for me. The
research findings for which I am being honored now generated a
level of hostility and opposition I could never have foreseen.
People wrote threatening letters, warning me that my reputation
and even my safety were in jeopardy if I continued along these
lines. At some universities, armed guards were provided to
accompany me during speeches. People misinterpreted my writings
and put words in my mouth that I had never spoken. People filed
ethical complaints and threatened lawsuits of organizations that
invited me to speak. People spread defamatory falsehoods in
writings, in newspapers, on the Internet.
As I stand here, the happy recipient of an award that honors
me for my research, I continue to be the target of efforts to
censor my ideas. I am gagged at the moment and may not give you
any details. But to me, that itself is the problem. Who, after
all, benefits from my silence? Who benefits from keeping such
investigations in the dark? My inquisitors. The only people who
operate in the dark are thieves, assassins, and cowards. Those of
us who value the first amendment and open scientific inquiry must
bring these efforts to suppress freedom of speech into the light,
and tonight I vow to you that when my own situation is resolved,
that is precisely what I'm going to do.
In this we can learn from the recent experience of Scott
Lilienfeld. Scott wrote a paper on the collision between politics
and science that followed in the wake of the Rind et al. affair.
The article was accepted for publication, but, mysteriously,
later rejected, unless Scott gutted it of all political
relevance. Psychological scientists -- many of whom are members
of APS -- launched a campaign to insure publication of Scott's
article. They told the story to the Chronicle of Higher
Education and to Science. They wrote letters, individually and
collectively, arguing for the preservation of peer review and the
importance of keeping politics out of the publication process.
"Organizational officials" grumbled about how inappropriate it
was to go public, to argue by e-mail, to air an internal conflict
to the media. They wanted everyone to shut up and let the appeals
process take its course. Was that so Scott's paper could have
been quietly suppressed? The scientists did not shut up, and
Scott's paper will be published this year, along with commentary
and debate, just as it should be.
I am honored to receive this award. I accept it on behalf of
the ideals and goals of science that we all hold so dear, and
which we must now redouble our efforts to defend.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
