Elizabeth Loftus Acceptance Speech

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.

A short cut to analysis

A new counseling technique called brief therapy is gaining ground. It focuses on the future, not the past

Imagine that while you slept a miracle happened and the problem that brought you to therapy was solved. How would you know? This slightly unnerving question lies at the heart of “brief therapy,” a counseling technique that focuses on solutions rather than problems and is rapidly gaining popularity. The therapy is based on the premise that you are the one with the power to solve your problem.

Brief therapy, as its name suggests, is quick and effective — most people needing fewer than six sessions over six months. “People want to feel better and get back in control of their lives as quickly as possible,” says Harvey Ratner, who co-founded the Brief Therapy Practice in West London. “Brief therapy finds short cuts to the solution by focusing on the future rather than delving into the past,” he says.

“The ‘miracle’ question helps people to start to identify some of the solutions to their problem. By visualizing how life could be different, they begin to see that the solution is in their hands and they can take control of making it better.”

The second stage is to get people to rate their unhappiness on a scale of zero to ten. Zero represents the worst the problem has been and ten the morning after the miracle has happened. “This helps me to show clients that they have things going for them that they can build on. It’s about evaluating someone’s preferred future and his or her progress towards it,” says Ratner.

Sam Bailey was 14 when he came to see Ratner. He was depressed and felt that he lacked direction. His answer to the miracle question was that he would be happier, more positive and would talk to his father more. He put himself at three on the scale.

“I encouraged him to think how he might feel at four,” says Ratner. “He said he would feel less stressed, talk to his parents about difficulties he was having at school and work harder. When he returned for his second session, Sam announced that he had reached 5.5 on his personal scale, which gave him confidence that he could reach six or seven. By the time he came to his last session he had reached six and was feeling much better about himself.”

Ratner points out that answers to the miracle question need to be realistic. “It’s no good saying you would win the lottery or even that you would feel less depressed. I would want to know what you feel instead. How would you know you were happier? What would happiness feel like to you? It’s only through attention to small behavioral details that people can begin to visualize how life can be different.”

What brief therapy has in common with many other treatments is that it provokes people into different ways of thinking. Therapists like it because they can see results quickly. Clients also prefer it because they feel in control.

“It emphasizes the resources and abilities they already have,” says Alasdair Macdonald, a consultant psychiatrist at the Carleton Clinic in Carlisle. He has used brief therapy on some of the most acute psychiatric cases in his practice, and with good results. “Our research shows that this type of therapy is 60 to 80 per cent effective, is more consistent, and seems to work with a wider range of problems,” he says.

Brief therapy is being applied everywhere from psychiatric hospitals to social work teams. Individual sessions cost about £50, but many therapists run schemes for clients on low incomes.

“I believe brief therapy will soon replace other types,” says Macdonald. “As NHS waiting lists for counseling grow daily, there is a financial imperative to find