For years, there has been a bias   against science among clinical psychologists  . In a two-year analysis to be published in November inPerspectives on Psychological Science, psychologists led by Timothy B. Baker of the University of Wisconsin charge that many clinical psychologists fail to "provide the treatments for which there is the strongest evidence of effectiveness" and "give more weight to their personal experiences than to science." As a result, patients have no guarantee that their "treatment will be informed by ... science." Walter Mischel of Columbia University is even crueler in his judgment. "The disconnect between what clinical psychologists do and what science has discovered is an extreme embarrassment," he told me, and "there is a widening gap between clinical practice and science." The "widening" reflects the great progress that psychological research has made in identifying   the most effective treatments. Thanks to strict clinical trials, we now know that teaching patients to think about their thoughts in new, healthier ways and to act on those new ways of thinking are effective against depression, panic disorder and other problems, with multiple trials showing that these treatments -- the tools of psychology -- bring more lasting benefits than drugs. You wouldn't know this if you sought help from a typical clinical psychologist. Although many treatments are effective, relatively few psychologists learn or practice them. Why in the world not? For one thing, says Baker, clinical psychologists are "very doubtful about the role of science" and "lack solid science training". Also, one third of patients get better no matter what treatment (if any) they have, "and psychologists remember these successes, believing, wrongly, that they are the result of the treatment." When faced with evidence that treatments they offer are not supported by science, clinical psychologists argue that they know better than some study what works. A 2008 study of 591 psychologists in private practice found that they rely more on their own and colleagues' experience than on science when deciding how to treat a patient. If they keep on this path as insurance companies demand evidence-based medicine, warns Mischel, psychology will "discredit itself." How do clinical psychologists respond when charged that their treatments are not supported by science?
They feel embarrassed. They try to defend themselves. They are disappointed. They doubt their treatments.