Reminiscences about Early History of Division 28 of APA

Herbert Barry, I11

5 February 1992; revised 10 August 1993

ies about the founding of Division 28 are fragmentary. I My memor

attended the f irst business meeting, probably at the 1966 APA meeting, after

the Division was established by the APA. Murray Jarvik presided as the first

president. I remember that he began the meeting by saying that Division 28

was born with a silver spoon in its mouth. This referred to donations of a

hundred dollars or more from each of several pharmaceutical companies, as

corporate sponsors.

I do not remember being active in the effort to establish the new APA

division. My pertinent affiliations were with Divisions 6 (Physiological and

Comparative Psychol ogy and 3 (Experimental Psychol ogy) . I was a1 so a member

of Division 10 (Esthetics). Division 6 had a good representation of

behavioral pharmacology in its programs. I do not remember experiencing a

craving for a new division of Psychopharmacology, but I willingly signed a

petition for the establishment of the Division, I believe at an APA meeting.

I was previously acquainted with most or all of the early officers of

Division 28. I had met Murray Jarvik at an ASPET dinner at a meeting in

Atlantic City about 1958. Marty Adler was with him at the same table. I had

known Bernie Wei ss and Vic Laties for several years. Other early officers

were Larry Stein, whom I met when he visited Yale several years before, and

Pete Grossman, whose pre-di ssertation research project I had supervised when

he was a graduate student and I was a post-doctoral fellow at Yale.

I also knew Harley Hanson, who was an early officer of the Division. I

was familiar with the name of Carl Scheckel, who I believe was the initial

Secretary of the Divison. My personal contact with him was sl ight. I believe

he was f a i r l y t a l l , w i t h l i g h t brown h a i r c u t shor t , wore g

benign but ser ious f a c i a l expression. He d i e d w i t h i n a few

D i v i s i o n 28 was founded.

2

lasses, had a

years a f t e r

I be1 ieve t h a t the f i r s t APA meeting I attended was i n 1956, and I have

attended a l l but two of t he subsequent meetings. U n t i l a few years a f t e r my

move t o Pi t tsburgh, I also attended EPA meetings r e g u l a r l y , beginning i n 1953,

my f i r s t year i n the Ph.D. program i n Psychology a t Yale. Many

psychopharmacologists attended both meetings. I undoubtedly met most o f those

who were a c t i v e then, but I have 1 i t t l e s p e c i f i c memory about whom I met when.

Some behavioral pharmacologists probably f e l t h o s t i l e toward me because

o f my associat ion w i t h Neal M i l l e r , who was a l ead ing spokesman f o r a

t h e o r e t i c a l type of behaviorism, arguing against Fred Skinner's empi r ica l

behaviorism. M i l l e r was the p r i n c i p a I advisor f o r my Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , on

e f f e c t s o f food dep r i va t i on on running speed o f r a t s i n a s t r a i g h t a l l e y . My

int rodluct ion t o psychopharmacology was the con t i nua t i on o f my a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h

M i l l e r . He sponsored me as a pos t -doc tora l research f e l l o w 1957-59, funded by

t h e Psychopharmacology D i v i s i o n o f NIMH. I i n j e c t e d r a t s w i t h drug o r

i s o t o n i c sa l i ne p r i o r t o p u t t i n g them i n a s t r a i g h t a l l e y o r o ther apparatus.

I was subsequently non-pr inc ipa l co - i nves t i ga to r w i t h M i l l e r on a research

grant and ass is tan t professor a t Yale 1959-61.

I attended what may have been the f i r s t o f f i c i a l meeting o f the

Behavioral Pharmacology Society. I be l i eve i t was i n 1958, a t t he EPA

meeting. I reported on a t e s t w i t h a square runway, showing t h a t amphetamine

and c a f f e i n e increased the number o f c i r c u i t s by t h e r a t s bu t i n a d i f f e r e n t

way. Amphetamine increased the number o f c i r c u i t s i n t he same d i r e c t i o n , thus

decreasing number o f reversa ls o f d i r e c t i o n , w h i l e c a f f e i n e increased both

3

c i r cu i t s and reversals. There were about 15-20 people, most of them working

for pharmaceutical companies. Some of them took notes on my report and seemed

interested in i t .

I met Peter Dews a t t h a t meeting. He talked with a strong English

accent, and he seemed t o be a leader of the group. A t the end of the meal, I

was asked to leave the room together with another newcomer, Ogden Lindsay,

while the group had a brief business meeting. I be1 ieve the business included

a vote on whether t o elect Ogden and me as members. My impression i s tha t he

was elected. I know that I was not.

George Heise, Thom Verhave, and Francis Mechner were researchers in

pharmaceutical companies whom I met early. There was an occasion when George

Heise reported on Li brium, which a t the time was named methaminodiazepoxide

instead of chlordiazepoxide. He reported the taming effect of the drug,

especially in monkeys, and said that i t did not cause ataxia or motor

weakness. He showed a brief film. Sam Irwin said he detected signs of ataxia

in the animal.

On another occasion, Francis Mechner gave a tour through his lab a t

Schering. He had developed concurrent automated control of a 1 arge number of

operant conditioning boxes. Later, I be1 ieve a t an APA meeting, Oakley Ray

commented t o me that he and some other behavioral sc ien t i s t s f e l t threatened

by Mec.hnerJ s expensive techno1 ogy . If Mechner succeeded, everybody el se would

be required t o use th is high technology, which was computer intensive and a

barr ier t o working with individual animals. If Mechner fai led, i t would be a

setback to the whole profession.

An episode in 1959 or 1960 induced expressions of hos t i l i ty toward Neal

Miller and me by some psychopharmacologists. The background was, I be1 ieve in

4

1958, Neal Miller showed me a review article on psychopharmacology by Joe

Brady. Miller was annoyed because it did not cite an article in Quarterly

Journal of Studies on Alcohol in 1951 by John Conger. This reported on

Conger's Ph.D. dissertation at Yale, directed by Miller. Alcohol decreased

the avoidance component of an approach-avoidance conflict in rats, tested in a

straight runway at the end of which the rat received a food pellet and

sometimes also a painful electric shock. Miller said the article might be a

thorough review of operant conditioning research but was incomplete because it

mi ssed Conger's arti cl e.

Miller seized the opportunity to retaliate in a footnote in a review

article by Miller and me in Psvcho~harmacolosv published in 1960. A review of

operant conditioning techniques by Murray Sidman was pub1 ished in the same

journal in 1959. Miller showed me his draft of a footnote to a citation of

that article, stating that it was a useful review but in common with other

Skinnerians the author suffered from a conviction that the only worthwhile

research was with operant techniques, which conveniently curtails the

literature to be surveyed and lowers the threshold for perception of ingroup

originality. I agreed with his statement and admired the cogent criticism,

though I generally avoid expressions of hostility toward individuals in my

publ ications. I readily agreed with Miller when he said that he felt he

should delete the last part of the passage, about the threshold for

perception. In retrospect I have wondered if I should have insisted on

deletion of the entire footnote, but I did not even consider doing so at the

time.

After the review was publ ished, Miller showed me several angry letters

from psychopharmacologists. I believe one was from Peter Dews or Joe Brady,

5

beginning with the statement that he generally did not write to the author of

an offensive statement such as this.

I remember having an extensive, friendly conversation with Thom Verhave

at a psychology meeting. He argued vigorously that personal criticisms such

as in that footnote did not belong in science. He or another colleague

commented that our review was one of the best ever done in psychopharmacology

but that it was marred by that comment.

Other memories are connected with that incident. When I met Murray

Sidman at a meeting, we shook hands with exaggerated duration and vigor, and

while doing so we looked at each other and laughed at our unusual behavior.

In 1964, I started to work together with Henrik Wallgren, a physiologist in

Finland, on a two-vol ume book that summarized scientific know1 edge about

actions of alcohol. He told me that he liked the review article with Miller

but that he did not like the footnote about convenient curtailment of

1 iterature to be surveyed.

I felt glad and surprised that several people had read our review

article attentively and taken our statements so seriously. I feel worried,

however, whenever I be1 ieve that I have offended anybody. Now, many years

later, I do not know whether I am overestimating or underestimating the degree

of hostility toward Miller and me induced by that published footnote.

In the research grant with Neal Miller, we bought several operant

conditioning boxes with programming equi pment from Grason-Stadl er Company. At

one of the APA or EPA meetings, the BRS digibits were introduced. The

salesman commented that a1 1 the psychopharmacol ogi sts seemed to know each

other. He offered a free digibit component to anybody who could break one of

the boards. He said Joe Brady was the only person who succeeded in doing so.

Neal M i l l e r t o l d me t h a t - Joe Brady had been very successful i n

persuading pharmaceutical companies t o h i r e young psychologis ts . This may

have been a t the t ime Brady gave a col loquium a t Yale, about 1959. Frank

Logan urged me t o at tend it, saying Brady was an exce l l en t speaker. Indeed he

was, t a l k i n g about stomach u l ce rs i n t he execut ive monkeys.

I remember an encounter between Neal M i l l e r and Fred Skinner a t an APA

meeting, about 1959, when I gave a p a r t y i n my room a t the ho te l . Besides

these two famous psychologists, the others were a l l graduate students o r very

young Ph.D.'s l i k e myself . M i l l e r t r i e d t o get Skinner i n t o a debate,

con t i nu ing a d iscussion they had e a r l i e r t h a t day i n a session. Skinner d i d

n o t want t o debate then. Somebody suggested we s ing co l l ege songs. M i l l e r

s a i d he cannot s ing we1 1. The o ther people there 1 is tened a t t e n t i v e l y t o both

o f them bu t sa id very 1 i t t l e .

Skinner attended a paper I gave a t APA i n 1958 o r 1959, on a procedure

t h a t invo lved e f f e c t o f extremely h igh i n t e n s i t y o f e l e c t r i c shocks de l ivered

t o the g r i d f l o o r . The r a t s were t r a i n e d t o terminate the p a i n f u l st imulus by

t u r n i n g a wheel mounted on one wa l l . I know t h a t he d i d no t l i k e my t o p i c and

procedure, bu t I was pleased t h a t he came t o hear my t a l k .

I was aware t h a t I was excluded from the Behavioral Pharmacology

Society . Some members were f r i e n d l y t o me, espec ia l l y Vic La t ies . I do not

remember my e a r l y meetings w i t h him bu t I remember, several years l a t e r , he

s a i d t o me t h a t I seem strange w i thout my mustache and asked me why I shaved

i t o f f . That surpr ised me because I wore a mustache f o r on ly about 6 months

w h i l e I was a t Yale, I t h i n k i n 1960. I shaved i t o f f p a r t l y because I was

d isappointed i t d i d no t grow i n t o the b ig, bushy mustache my paternal

grandfather had. It was a b r i e f episode f o r me, and I f e l t surpr ised t h a t i t

7

was a prominent aspect o f my appearance f o r a colleague. I understood Vic 's

r e a c t i o n b e t t e r several years l a t e r when I d i d not recognize Bob Ba ls te r on

the f i r s t t ime I saw him a f t e r he shaved o f f h i s bushy beard.

I was e lec ted t o membership i n t he BPS about 1967. I had attended a

couple o f meetings as a guest beforehand, I be1 ieve i n v i t e d by Vic La t i es o r

Bernie Weiss. One o f them wrote me the l e t t e r o f i n v i t a t i o n , which contained

the statement t h i s was an unusual soc ie t y because the re were no annual dues,

bu t t he members were expected t o at tend the annual meetings. I have attended

every meeting s ince then except one year, when i t was i n L i t t l e Rock,

Arkansas.

The establishment o f D i v i s i o n 28 s h o r t l y before might have con t r i bu ted

t o my e l e c t i o n t o the BPS. I was becoming i nc reas ing l y acquainted w i t h the

a c t i v e members o f t h a t d i v i s i o n , many o f whom belonged t o t h e BPS. Also, I

separated from Neal M i l l e r and Yale i n 1961, when I became an Ass is tan t

Professor o f Psychology a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f Connecticut. I n 1963 I became a

Research Associate Professor o f Pharmacology a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t tsburgh

School o f Pharmacy, where I was the on l y psychologis t i n a p r o j e c t "Analys is

o f Psychopharmaco1ogic Methodology" funded by a l a r g e grant from NIMH. I n

1966 the Journal o f Pharmaceutical Science pub1 ished a rev iew a r t i c l e by me

and Joseph P. Buckley on drug e f f e c t s and the s t ress syndrome. This appeared

t o impress some psychopharmacol ogy co l 1 eagues. It contained no footnotes

c r i t i c i z i n g any o f them.

The most important in f luence on my e a r l y a c t i v i t y i n D i

research on d i s c r i m i n a t i v e drug e f f e c t s . I i n i t i a l l y became

t o p i c w h i l e w i t h Neal M i l l e r a t Yale, p r i o r t o 1961. Some o f

t he re was on s t a t e dependent learn ing, and t h a t was the bas is

v i s i o n 28 was

i n te res ted i n the

my research

f o r my awareness

8

o f t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . I f e l t doubt fu l t h a t i t would be f e a s i b l e t o t r a i n

animals t o d i sc r im ina te t h e i r drug states, and my d e s i r e might have been t o

expand the s ta te dependency procedure ra the r than t o t r a i n t h e drug

d i sc r im ina t i on . Neal M i l l e r expressed no i n t e r e s t i n research on t h i s t o p i c ,

however, so t h a t I d i d no t attempt t o undertake t h a t type o f research.

A t an APA meeting, probably 1958 o r 1959, 1 met Lucy Gardner, a recen t

graduate o f Oberl i n College. I be1 ieve she was a t McGi l l Un ive rs i t y , having

worked as a research ass i s tan t f o r Girden o r Cu l le r , perhaps f o r D a l b i r

Bindra. She was i n te res ted i n the poss ib i l i t y o f working as a research

ass i s tan t f o r Neal M i l l e r p r i o r t o applying t o graduate school. I f l i r t e d

m i l d l y w i t h her, dancing cheek t o cheek a t the APA dance. I do n o t remember

our conversation, bu t i t probably included the t o p i c o f s t a t e dependent

1 earning. She probably was acquainted w i t h Don Overton.

Soon a f t e r the meeting I wrote a l e t t e r t o her saying t h a t I l i k e d her

and hoped she would come t o Yale. She decided t o go elsewhere. I speculated

t h a t my l e t t e r t o her might have been improper and a mistake, d e t e r r i n g her

from going t o Yale.

When I s t a r t e d the j o b a t P i t tsburgh i n 1963, I f e l t i n t e r e s t e d i n

s tudying s t a t e dependent learn ing. I met Ina Braden, who was then a

Psychology graduate student a t P i t t . Another student t he re was Don Posluns,

who had been a t McGi l l and knew Don Overton. I t o l d Ina about my research

i n t e r e s t s , and a t an APA meeting i n 1963 o r 1964 she s a i d Don Posluns had a

f r i e n d a t McGi l l who was doing research on drug d i sc r im ina t i on . I met t h a t

f r i end , who was Don Overton and had publ ished h i s i n i t i a l a r t i c l e s on the

t o p i c . This was the f i r s t o f many discussions o f t he t o p i c w i t h him over a

span o f many years. I f e l t encouraged t o proceed w i t h research on t h i s t op i c .

This became the main focus o f my research i n psychopharmacology.

One o f the psychopharmacologists I met wh i l e a t Yale was Bob Edwards.

He was the research psychologis t a t S t e r l i n g Winthrop Co., and he d i d a study

o f analgesic e f f e c t o f a s p i r i n a t our lab, us ing our device f o r measuring

avoidance o r escape o f g radua l ly inc reas ing i n t e n s i t y o f p a i n f u l e l e c t r i c

shock. A year o r two l a t e r , he o f fe red me a j o b as h i s ass i s tan t a t S t e r l i n g

Winthrop, but he t o l d me there was a long- t ime ass is tan t w i thout a Ph.D.

degree who expected t o become h i s c h i e f ass i s tan t and would be an tagon is t i c

toward the person appointed t o t h a t job. I f e l t f l a t t e r e d by the o f f e r b u t

was no t in terested. I wanted an academic career, and I f e l t uneasy about t h e

prospect o f him being my boss, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h another ass i s tan t who would be

c e r t a i n t o fee l an tagon is t i c toward me.

Bob Edwards several years l a t e r j o ined the s t a f f a t the

Psychopharmacology Service Center o f NIMH, which administered the research

g ran t t h a t employed me a t t he U n i v e r s i t y o f Pi t tsburgh. I had considerable

contac t w i t h him, and much o f i t was adverse because the spec ia l committee

t h a t had establ i shed the "ana lys is o f psychopharmacologic methodology" became

inc reas ing l y disappointed w i t h our progress. Bob Edwards p a r t i c i p a t e d w i t h

Don Overton i n organiz ing a meeting a t the Psychopharmacol ogy Serv ice Center

t o discuss drug d i sc r im ina t i on . I had al ready begun research on t h a t t o p i c

and was we l l acquainted w i t h Overton. Edwards d i d no t i n v i t e me t o the

conference. I be1 i eve I 1 earned about i t from Overton. Edwards was w i 11 i ng

t o l e t me at tend but would no t guarantee t h a t my t r a v e l expenses would be

reimbursed. I went by t r a i n ins tead o f plane t o minimize expenses. Murray

J a r v i k was espec ia l l y c o r d i a l t o me a t t h e meeting. Bob Edwards was h i g h l y

a t t e n t i v e t o Jarwik , who was he lp ing Edwards t o get an academic j o b i n

10

C a l i f o r n i a . The conference was very worthwhile, and I was g l a d I attended. I

be l i eve t h a t the NIMH d i d pay my expenses.

Wi th in a few years a f t e r D iv i s

o f f i c e s . Harley Hanson t o l d me t h a t

same names, and he decided which o f f

on the b a l l o t .

I became acquainted w i t h Conan

i o n 28 was founded, I was nominated f o r

t he nominations y i e l d e d several o f t he

ices the nominees were t o be assigned t o

Kornetsky, who enjoyed t a l k i n g w i t h me a t

meetings and sent me numerous manuscripts t o rev iew f o r Ps~cho~har rnaco l oav

when he became e d i t o r i n 1970. He r e c r u i t e d me t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p r o t e s t

meeting he organized when Kenneth B. Smith i n h i s APA p r e s i d e n t i a l address

proposed t h a t p o l i t i c a l leaders be requ i red t o take ant i -aggress ion drugs. I

am not o r d i n a r i l y a p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t bu t wanted t o show support f o r Conan.

I was surpr ised when Conan t o l d me he had recommended me as h i s

successor as one o f the Managing Ed i to rs o f P s ~ c h o ~ h a r m a c o l o q ~ i n 1974. This

began a long-cont inu ing and prominent r o l e f o r me i n psychopharmacology.

During a span o f many years, Don Overton o f t e n organized a d iscussion

group a t APA and EPA meetings on drug d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and s t a t e dependent

1 earning. They were s t imu la t ing , enjoyable experiences. My i n i t i a l major

paper on drug d i sc r im ina t i on was w i t h Kubena i n 1969. Murray J a r v i k , the

E d i t o r o f Ps~cho~harmacolos ia, sa id one reviewer had commented the paper

con t r i bu ted noth ing beyond Overton's work, he discounted t h i s because he had

t o w a i t t h ree months f o r i t and d i d no t r e a l l y agree w i t h i t .

This adverse op in ion expressed the pre jud ice o f many o f t h e "Skinnerian"

col leagues. I be1 ieve t h e concept o f d i s c r i m i n a t i v e l e a r n i n g was t o o

t h e o r e t i c a l f o r t h e i r empi r ica l biases. Pharmaceutical companies were

r e l u c t a n t t o use the technique because i t took too l ong t o t r a i n animals.

11

Subsequent1 y, the technique has become popular w i t h Sk inner i ans and d rug

companies. I be1 i e v e t h e d e c i s i v e i n f l u e n c e was t h e use o f t h e f i x e d r a t i o

schedule o f re in fo rcement by Colpaer t . Th i s induces c l ose t o 100% c o r r e c t

choice. They f i n d a t t r a c t i v e a procedure t h a t es tab l ishes e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l

over t h e behavior, so t h a t t h e drug e f f e c t s can be demonstrated c o n v i n c i n g l y

i n a s i n g l e animal.

I became more a c t i v e i n D i v i s i o n 28 when I was e lec ted Secre ta ry . The

yea r t h a t I began my d u t i e s i n t h a t p o s i t i o n was one o f t he two years when I

d i d n o t a t t end t h e APA meet ing. I t c o n f l i c t e d w i t h a conference i n Sweden i n

which I p a r t i c i p a t e d . Th i s was a bad s t a r t t o my p o s i t i o n . I f e e l t h a t

subsequent ly I d i d t h e j o b t o l e r a b l y w e l l b u t throughout t h a t t i m e I was very

h e a v i l y busy w i t h o t h e r p ro fess iona l du t i es , so t h a t was a severe l i m i t a t i o n

on my performance o f t h a t job .

Don Overton, Leonard Cook, and I served D i v i s i o n 28 as a committee t o

r e v i s e t h e bylaws o f D i v i s i o n 28. Cook i n s i s t e d t h a t on ly t h e e l e c t e d

Execu t i ve Committee members should have t h e vote. Th i s was adopted w i t h t h e

d e c i s i v e suppor t o f Joe Brady.

Don and I advocated one i ns tead o f two years as t he term f o r p res iden t

o f t h e d i v i s i o n . The two-year term had been adopted a few years e a r l i e r .

There was s t r ong r e s i s t a n c e t o our proposal , and I thought i t was doomed. But

we p e r s i s t e d i n advocat ing it. Then Joe Brady, who was p res iden t e l e c t , was

asked i f he wanted a one o r two year term. He s a i d one year.

Whi le I was Pres iden t o f D i v i s i o n 28, succeeding Joe Brady, I was

h e a v i l y burdened w i t h o t h e r p ro fess iona l a c t i v i t i e s and a l so t h e bereavement

o f t h e sudden death o f I n a Braden on 2 A p r i l 1979. I t h e r e f o r e was n o t ab le

t o devote many hours t o D i v i s i o n 28 business. Th i s was p robab ly n o t as much

o f a detr iment t o my performance i n t h a t p o s i t i o n as i t had been i n my

func t i on as Secretary. I f e e l t h a t my most use fu l c o n t r i b u t i o n was t o he lp

es tab l i sh a precedent t h a t the l o s e r o f the e l e c t i o n as President i s u s u a l l y

nominated and e lected the next year. I had l o s t t o Joe Brady t h e year be fore

I was elected. I had a1 so been the l o s i n g nominee several years e a r l i e r , when

George Heise was e lected.