Junk Science?


HOME
Research
Articles & Essays
 
 

"countless lawyers and mental health professionals continue to deny that such a syndrome exists, their primary reason being that it is not found in the DSM-IV." (Cartwright)

Apparently oblivious to critical expositions of the error, detractors continue to argue that parental alienation syndrome is a "myth" because the data did not support the creation of a new diagnosis in the fourth revision of the DSM. This is the rationale behind the "junk science" claims bandied about in popular media: Parental alienation did not meet the criteria for a "syndrome," i.e. a stand-alone, diagnosable mental illness. This appears to be the purport of the following passage from the 1996 APA paper:


Although there are no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome, in which mothers are blamed for interfering with their children's attachment to their fathers, the term is still used by some evalua-tors and courts to discount children's fears in hostile and psychologically abusive situations. (APA, 1996, p. 40)

Apart from mischaracterizing PAS as a mother-blaming phenomenon, (Gardeners' definition is gender-neutral), precise interpretation of this passage depends on whether the word "phenomenon" means a diagnosable syndrome or the concept of one parent alienating a child from the other parent. However, allegations that the APA has denounced PAS as "junk science" appear reckless in light of an APA conference advanced training workshop featuring assessment of when PAS "does and does not occur."
Further, scholarly interest in parental alienation has not diminished since the concept was allegedly exposed as a fraud in 1996. By February, 2001, ten of Gardener's publications were "published in peer review journals" (list), and by 2002 this "junk science" seems to have been established as a phenomenon worthy of scientific inquiry:

Recognition of the Parental Alienation Syndrome has come slowly. Although the problem was identified less than two decades ago, there are now 133 peer reviewed articles, and 66 legal citations from courts of law which have recognized the disorder, "including a Frye Test hearing in which the court ruled that the PAS has gained enough recognition in the scientific community to warrant recognition in courts of law." ...Despite this, countless lawyers and mental health professionals continue to deny that such a syndrome exists, their primary reason being that it is not found in the DSM-IV. (Cartwright, 2002)

There are a variety of egregious behaviors that also do not meet the criteria for a DSM diagnosis. If we must argue that a thing is a myth because the DSM does not recognize it as a clinical syndrome, wake me when it's time to discuss "battered womens' syndrome."