I Wouldn’t Even Want to Go There!
Branded ABA packages scare off policymakers—use plain, shared language to keep funding alive.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Keenan (2025) wrote a position paper. It argues that selling ABA as a brand-name product hurts the field. The paper says lawmakers see packages like “Brand-X ABA” and think the whole science is just another item on a shelf.
The author wants the field to adopt a shared ethics code. One voice, no slogans. The goal is to show governments that ABA is a public good, not a trademarked toy.
What they found
The paper does not give new data. Instead it maps how branded packages turn policymakers off. When each clinic sells “exclusive” ABA, lawmakers doubt the science and fund less.
Keenan warns that this branding race lowers pay, shrinks services, and invites weak copy-cat programs.
How this fits with other research
Chung et al. (2024) review the same branded programs—EIBI, ESDM, and others—that Keenan critiques. The review treats them as best-practice tools. Keenan does not say the tools are bad; he says the marketing of them is. The papers sit side-by-side: one praises the manuals, the other warns about the sales pitch.
Mathur et al. (2024) extend Keenan’s ethics push. They ask BCBAs to add neurodiversity language to their public voice. Together the two papers form a two-step plan: drop the sales pitch, then add respectful wording.
Schreck et al. (2016) show TV already favors fad diets over ABA. Keenan’s worry is real—if the field keeps selling itself like cereal, media confusion will only grow.
Why it matters
You may not run ads, but you still represent ABA. Drop the trademark talk in reports and team meetings. Write “early intensive behavioral intervention” instead of flashing a brand name. Push your employer to join a shared ethics pledge. One small language shift can help lawmakers see a unified science worth funding.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Replace any brand-name jargon in your next report with generic terms like “behavior analytic intervention.”
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Although applied behavior analysis (ABA) is regarded as providing the gold standard for interventions designed to meet the needs of autistic individuals in the United States, elsewhere this is not the case. In Northern Ireland, for example, successive governments have portrayed ABA simply as one of a number of commercially available interventions for autism. In this article, I argue that this view arises directly from the practice of behavior analysts who have courted the development of branded versions of ABA at the expense of promoting ABA directly. Because clinicians who advise government ministers are not trained in ABA, it is understandable that a discrimination issue arises whereby ministers are then encouraged not to invest in only “one of the commercially available interventions.” To address this problem, the article ends with a suggestion in how a specially designed ethical code of practice might hold behavior analysts accountable for the discrimination problems that could arise as a consequence of their actions in countries struggling to promote the uptake of ABA.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s40614-025-00440-w