It was with considerable interest that I read the comments on my paper (Lovibond, 1993) offered by our three international colleagues. It is at once apparent from the commentaries that the issues in clinical psychology to which I drew attention are in no way unique to Australia. Quite clearly, however, in Japan behaviour therapy (or CBT) has not yet reached that stage of development where the problems I posed become relevant. For this reason I shall concentrate mainly on the comments of Professors Russo and Tarrier. Each of the commentators, but particularly Dr. Russo, found points of agreement with my statement of the issues, but none expressed support for the program of action I suggested. Surprisingly however, none had alternative solutions to offer.

I believe the most important issue I raised was the threat to the primacy of the scientist-professional model in the education/training/practice of clinical psychologists. Professor Russo clearly shares my concerns here, but Professor Tarrier makes no mention of the scientist-professional model or the need to maintain links with the basic discipline of psychology. From the general tenor of his remarks, I gather that Professor Tarrier does not regard the fate of the scientist-professional model as a major issue, and indeed he seems quite satisfied with the status of clinical psychology in the UK. Interestingly however, the report of the Manpower Planning Advisory Group, which Professor Tarrier quotes at another point, suggests that in the UK “clinical psychologists' roles are seen as ambiguous by others, confused with the roles of other disciplines and further confused by the variety of ways in which psychology services are delivered and practised. The research also found poor promotion of clinical psychologists' contributions to services and an inappropriately low profile in view of the impact that clinical psychologists could be having on the effectiveness of services” (MPAG, 1990, p. 8).