Hot on the heels of that Australian review of research on autism interventions comes this lay summary of a similar such review, by its own authors.

Strip away the measured tone and its an absolutely scathing indictment of a profession and industry that claims evidence based on faulty study designs, routinely fails to disclose conflicts of interest, and offers next to no mention of adverse effects or harms.

Altogether, our analyses revealed three ethical problems: Most studies are poorly designed, fail to disclose COIs and lack attention to adverse outcomes. Disclosing COIs and taking steps to mitigate the biases they may introduce will lead to better-quality research and instill greater trust from the autism community. Proactively measuring and reporting adverse outcomes will enable families to adequately weigh the potential benefits of interventions against any potential negative consequences.

I said that the other report reveals, without explicitly stating, a moral stain on the practice of psychology. The authors of this second report effectively make this statement themselves.