Crafting Science for Political Agendas: A Response to Robiner et al.
The present paper argues that Robiner et al.'s assertion that their research demonstrates that psychologists' educational backgrounds will significantly hinder their ability to be trained for prescriptive authority is an example of policy advocates crafting research findings to support personal positions. Flaws in methodology and reasoning that significantly undermine the authors' conclusions are outlined in four areas: (1) incomplete interpretations of the literature; (2) flaws in research methodology; (3) questionable empirical comparisons; and (4) skewed and incomplete interpretation of the results. Careful examination of the data suggests that this research supports the notion that a strong postsecondary education in the physical sciences does not appear to be a prerequisite for psychopharmacological competency.