Welcome back from wherever you have been. I hope that you have all had delightful and renewing summers. I had expected to use this column to report to you on events at the International Meeting in Helsinki, but I was, at the last moment, unable to attend. So I will leave it to others to provide a report of what I hear was a most successful scientific and social gathering. We all extend our congratulations to the new officers of the International Psycho-Analytical Association: Doctors Adam Limentani of London, President; Francis McLaughlin of Baltimore, Treasurer; and Moses Laufer of London, Secretary.
I would like to bring you up to date on some matters which have advanced during the summer. To use a fading summer metaphor, one may think of our administrative activities as part of the unavoidable, at times disagreeable, tasks of gardening—weeding, watering, or spreading manure—which will help bring forth the flowers of psychoanalysis. We do have to take care that we do not bury the flowers in an overdose of fertilizer. With this warning in mind, I remind you that we now have a Committee on Developmental Resources chaired by Bernie Pacella and charged with the task of finding ways to raise money. This group is the successor to the fund raising effort of the Fund for Psychoanalytic Research, headed by George Klumpner, who did a magnificent job of organizing a national network of local representatives. As this work progressed, it became clear that there were so many ramifications to the task, that it was best to reorganize the group as a committee of the Executive Council.
Research in psychoanalysis has been extraordinarily productive for a century as an individual enterprise undertaken by dedicated persons who pursue their research as part of their clinical activities. This source of new observations and ideas will, we assume, continue as a natural expression of the interest and excitement of analytic practitioners. Only occasionally do these workers require financial support, and then only in small amounts.
There has, however, been another kind of research of parallel importance—research done by groups requiring facilities that are expensive, ranging from infant nurseries to computer time or hired statisticians. Much of the work of Anna Freud and the Hampstead Group, of Margaret Mahler, and currently, for example, of Schlesinger and Mumford on the effects of psychotherapy, have required significant outside funding. Unfortunately, the previous sources of such funding have become increasingly insecure at the same time as larger scale studies of some of the key questions in psychoanalysis have become increasingly possible and important. It is appropriate for organized psychoanalysis to provide the research support that is needed. For these purposes, then, the Committee on Developmental Resources will try to develop our ability to reach individual, institutional, and governmental sources to assure the continued healthy development of psychoanalytic research. The Committee is also, of course, prepared to receive funds for other designated purposes—e.g., educational or community services.
Dr. Pacella, building on Dr. Klumpner's work, has asked many of you to represent your region in this national effort, and others will be hearing from him. Organized psychoanalysis has not developed great experience in raising money, but we will have to overcome any residual neurotic inhibitions we may have in that regard, if we are to assure that our research continues to be as vigorous and rigorous as it can be. I know that Dr. Pacella is eager to hear from you, regarding fund raising methods and sources. Great care is being taken to assure that we will not be competing with our own local societies; rather, we are convinced that a national effort will benefit local groups through the increased level of awareness of the value of psychoanalytic research that we believe we will achieve among potential donors.
A second matter concerns the consideration of a national certification process in psychotherapy (and, perhaps, in psychoanalysis) being pursued by a Joint Ad Hoc Committee of Board and Council and headed by Herb Gaskill with Paul Fink and Jim McLaughlin. This effort began on the initiative of Don Langsley while he was President of the American Psychiatric Association and has continued with his participation as he has moved to the position of Executive Vice-President of the American Board of Medical Specialties. Representatives of the Academy of Psychoanalysis are also participating.
Because there has been some confusion, I would like to clarify that this exploration of the possibility of our participation in a national certification procedure is totally separate from our own American Psychoanalytic Association certification procedure, which will pursue its own course, continuing to demand standards of excellence. Many have felt, however, that we are handicapped in our dealings with government and third-party payer groups by not having any official national standing as a certifying body—something we cannot achieve through our own procedures limited to our own graduates. It has been suggested that a national certifying board for psychotherapy (with perhaps, a separate section for psychoanalysis) with clear, certifying requirements and an examination for admission, could help us to assure interested parties that psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are definable specialties with clear entry and achievement requirements.
The Ad Hoc National Certification Committee will be exploring the possibility of some agreed-upon minimal standards for certifying psychotherapists with, perhaps, a second set of standards for nationally certifying psychoanalysts. These standards would have to be compatible with the needs of the Academy, the American Psychiatric Association, and perhaps Section 39 of the American Psychological Association and would surely differ significantly from our own standards, which we will continue to maintain for our own necessary purposes. We will keep you closely informed as these discussions continue. Any recommendations of the Committee will be brought before you for full discussion and approval before we would participate in such procedures.
A reminder. The question of the Limited Voting Rights Membership Proposal will be coming up for a vote in the Council this Fall prior to a mail ballot on a By-laws amendment. I urge, again, that all individuals, societies, and institutes discuss the matter carefully. Each of you has received a summary of Board and Council discussions and a summary of the issues. Please study these and be sure your Councilors know your views.
Finally, the issue of nonmedical training is beginning to come to the forefront of our discussions. As I have said before, I think this issue has by far, the greatest potential for changing our Association of any proposal we have ever considered (though whether such change would be for better, for worse, or neither, I can't say). I am sure you will give it full attention. No votes will be taken at this time, but we should begin to clarify the possible long-range consequences of these suggestions for increased nonmedical training.
I hope this dose of administrative concerns has not dampened the enthusiasm of your return to full professional life. Cultivate and enjoy the psychoanalytic garden. Best wishes.
Arnold M. Cooper, M.D.
President