Primary prevention: Should we support both practice and research?

The February 16, 1983 debate on Primary Prevention in which Albee and Goldston met Lamb and Zusman underlined a number of issues that are repeatedly discussed in such forums. In response to an invitation to comment on the debate by the Florida Mental Health Institute, I would like to focus on five of these issues. I should state at the outset that my comments are far from unbiased, as I am clearly an advocate for prevention intervention and prevention intervention research (Munoz & Kelly, 1975; Munoz, 1976; Christensen, Miller & Munoz, 1978; Munoz, Snowden & Kelly, 1979; Munoz, 1980; Munoz, 1982). In my discussion, I will try to: 1) identify some premises which were not sufficiently emphasized; 2) make such premises clear so that, hopefully, any further discussion is based on shared (or at least well-identified) starting points; and 3) add my perspectives in each of these areas. I will use examples dealing with affective disorders throughout my discussion, because they are among the most prevalent of disorders, and because they are present in various levels of severity.