A couple of quick thoughts on reading this. Firstly, I went to a talk at the Wellcome Institute last Monday, 26th. November, by John Forrester, who is the University of Cambridge's expert on the history of psychiatry. During the course of this seminar Professor Forrester stated, as I recall, that Lord Layard is the son of a Cambridge psychoanalyst. Can members of this discussion group confirm this and provide more information? Secondly, in relation to the history of psychology again, it seems clear to me that there was a division between economics and psychology between the two World Wars. For instnace, in the 1920s the National Insitute of Industrial Psychology, which was just round the corner for LSE, ran a diploma course there; but this link between industrial psychology and economics at LSE was lost. Economists in recent years, apparently including Lord Layard, have realised the need to be more sophisticated than their traditional behaviourist view of humans making optimal economic choices (Simon of course won the Nobel Prize in this area). However, economists like Layard seem to be starting from way back acadmically. "The Psychologist" has in the past published letters from me pointing out the comparative lack of economic psychology in the United Kingdom (research funding is focussed on one Psychology Department, at Exeter); but so far as I can see this state of affairs has not greatly changed. Thirdly, Layard is politician as much as academic. He probably sees that to address wellbeing he has to propose a very specific programme, i.e. CBT. If this gets some more psychology graduates employed in a country where less than ten per cent of psychology graduates get jobs as professional psychologists, and a considerable proportion don't even get employment relevant to their degree, I would be pleased, given the large amount of psychological distress that needs to be addressed. However, I have immense qualms about the pigeonholding of Psychology as a subject ancillary to medicine (e.g. for Research Assessment Exercise purposes), and the consequent skewing of psycholgiy towards health topics (clinical psychology, health psychology) that treat people as damaged and to be treated by a professional and bureaucratic establishement. I recollect seeing in "the Guardian" that the same is happening in relation to exercise: the Department of Health is trying to take over the provision of gyms in relation to the issue of obesity at the expense of the authorities concerned with sport. Has Frank Layard got involved in Department of health empire building, expanding to justify its existence even at the exprense of human freedom and dignity? And, as a minor point, recognition that thought and behaviour is part of all life rather than a health issue? Frederic Stansfield "McGowan John (Sussex Partnership Trust)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: While I enjoy seeing most criticism of the good Lord and appreciated the letter that was in the Psychologist the fact that he is (for want of a better phrase) out of his ground on the CBT/employment literature I feel that this is one of the weakest areas in which to criticise the LSE depression report. I've read a couple of good trainee reviews of the literature on employment and really Layard leaves some areas which can be tested in this regard and evidence built up. The two pilot sites are combining CBT with support to get back to employment. I think the most potent criticisms of Layard in general are around areas where variables which are apparently simple and fixed. I think these are: 40% of people on Incapacity benefit, the number of people who don't access psychological treatments for cost reasons, 50% recovery from anxiety and depression, a direct translation from RCT evidence to the real world. Well you all are aware of these I'm sure. The issue for me is that, when you look at these with anything other than a superficial glance they become complex and uncertain variables and the whole thing looks like rather weak science. I did try and interest the quther of Bad Science in the Guardian but he felt that his column inches were better spent on AIDS denialists and homeopathy. John McGowan -----Original Message----- From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Burton Sent: 03 December 2007 11:35 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: This Month's 'The Psychologist' - Layard and state security This email covers 2 things - the Layard CBT issue, and the torture/interrogation issue. 1) Layard List members might like to comment on the first news item in this month's 'Psychologist' magazine (the BPS monthly). http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/thepsychologist/extras/pages$/2007/mo re-funds-for-mental-health.cfm It mention's the new money and the emphasis on CBT. It interviews Graham Turpin (one of the BPS experts on the Improving Access to Psych therapies reference group). Turpin's main concern seems to be the usual craft union interest that, to quote - 'These new CBT therapists shouldn't threaten job prospects for psychologists'. He also gives a response to suggestion that this initiative is motivated by getting people back to work (there is no mention that the argument is actually that this isn't a problem, the problem is the idea of cutting benefits for those who are chroniclly sick). Although our press release http://www.compsy.org.uk/changing%20minds.pdf was sent to The Psychologist there is no mention of our critique of the whole approach. There is, however this letterfrom James Japp, Dunblane and list members might like to use this as a hook for a response:- Layard's folly Lord Layard is obviously a capable and well-meaning individual but does any psychologist, regardless of discipline, really believe that an average of 10 sessions of CBT is sufficient input as a strategy for returning those with a mental health condition on long-term incapacity benefit back into work? Lord Layard puts forward well-argued and perfectly valid points for CBT as a health solution to alleviate anxiety and depression in the sizable population who unfortunately suffer from a mental health condition. However, he then skips to CBT as a solution to long-term intransigent unemployment without any supporting evidence or logical rationale for the therapy itself. Counselling (CBT or any other form) can be excellent as an early intervention, particularly for job retention but what it is not is 'evidence-based practice' for long-term intransigent unemployment.Individuals fail to progress from incapacity benefit to employment for a whole host of practical reasons that cannot be moderated by counselling including: poor literacy skills, a low general skill base, contentedness with current position in life, low stamina levels, lack of opportunity, employer prejudice, a second disability, cultural attitude, being less well off working than on incapacity benefit, and inability to identify job sources to mention a few. Furthermore, a number of psychosocial issues not necessarily related to the mental health condition including: low confidence, poor social skills, socialised low expectations, or fear of failing may also need addressed.The long-term unemployed require holistic intervention with active support on a number of fronts and which is sustained long after employment has commenced. The actual mental health condition comes fairly low in the list of priorities; there are plenty of examples of individuals with chronic mental health problems holding down employment. CBT is not the solution to reducing the numbers on incapacity benefit, but holistic and supportive intervention that identifies and addresses all the needs of the individual can be, and if the patient buys into it, this may well include CBT. James Japp Dunblane 2) Psychologists and State security / torture / interrogation You can also see our letter on torture on the same page (723) Here it is for those who aren't members and therefore can't access - Psychologists and national security Karen Carr from the Defence Academy of the UK (Letters, October 2007) perhaps not surprisingly contends that 'psychology should be used in a controlled way to help with our very difficult security and defence problems'. But as the events we outline show, the control will not be by democratic institutions, nor by professional bodies, but by the institutions of state security themselves. Involvement in them implies the kind of Faustian pact in which the leadership of the APA has now been exposed. In that case it was the professional body itself that was corrupted, but the same pressures and processes will operate elsewhere.That is why psychologists should not be present in the military and in secret prisons - presence in these organisations legitimates their existence and they stand no chance of ameliorating their regimes. Of course, we do not know if psychologists are working in the secret services (we have to assume they are), but their practice there is not subject to the kind of democratic scrutiny that Karen calls for. Thus it lacks safeguards, the accountability being to unfettered State interests and not to the public interest that, however muted, is still present in, for example, the prison service and other criminal justice settings. Because our democracy is so conditional and flawed it cannot serve as the safeguard that substitutes for a self-imposed ethical practice, including refusal to engage in the undemocratic structures of institutional oppression that are the more secretive parts of the State's apparatus. Mark Burton Carolyn Kagan Manchester Metropolitan University Mark Burton ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask] Help us to be the best we can be ... Become a member of Sussex Partnership and help us to fight stigma and raise the profile of mental wellbeing. Visit our Foundation Trust membership web page for more information and a membership application form. ************************************************************************* This message and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies and delete the email after advising the sender of the error. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. The information contained within it may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (2000), unless it is legally exempt from disclosure. ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask] ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]