A slightly belated Spike Activity to capture some of the responses to the APA report plus quick links from the past week in mind and brain news:
APA makes a non-apology on Twitter and gets panned in response.
“the organization’s long-standing ethics director, Stephen Behnke, had been removed from his position as a result of the report and signaled that other firings or sanctions could follow” according to the Washington Post.
Psychologist accused of enabling US torture backed by former FBI chief, reports The Guardian. The wrangling begins.
PsychCentral editor John Grohol resigns from the APA in protest at the ethical failings.
Remarkable comments from long-time anti-torture campaigners Stephen Soldz and Steven Reisner made to a board meeting of the APA: “I see that some of the people who need to go are in this room. That in itself tells me that you don’t really yet understand the seriousness of your situation.”
European Federation of Psychology Associations releases statement on APA revelations: “Interrogations are a NO-GO zone for psychologists” – which seems to confuse interrogations, which can be done ethically and benefit from psychological input, and torture, which cannot.
Jean Maria Arrigo, the psychologist who warned of torture collusion and was subjected to a smear campaign is vindicated by the report, reports The Guardian.
And now on to more pleasant, non-torture, non-complete institutional breakdown in ethical responsibility news…
What It’s Like to Be Profoundly ‘Face-Blind’. Interesting piece from the Science of Us.
Wired reports that Bitcoins can be ‘stolen from your brain’. A bit of an exaggeration but a fascinating story nonetheless.
Could Travelling Waves Upset Cognitive Neuroscience? asks Neuroskeptic.
The New Yorker has a great three-part series on sleep and sleeplessness.
Robotic shelves! MIT Tech Review has the video. To the bunkers!
Mind Hacks 
I wonder if there are degrees of “face-blindness”? I think Damasio says somewhere that face-blind sheep farmers can nevertheless distinguish their sheep apart, and draws the inference thnat there is some specialization involved. Various times I have completely misunderstood film plots because two characters look so much the same to me I have not realised they are in conflicting roles, and I do forget faces quite easily. Furthermore when doing those tests where you have to say whether a face is the same as a target face when differently lit, angled, etc, I simply could not even start to judge. This is obviously less dramatic than what is described in the article, so makes me wonder how all or nothing this is?