There is a belief in some quarters that psychodynamic concepts and treatments lack empirical support, or that scientific evidence shows that other forms of treatment are more effective. The belief appears to have taken on a life of its own. Academicians repeat it to one another, as do healthcare administrators, as do healthcare policy makers. With each repetition, its apparent credibility grows. At some point, there seems little need to question or revisit it because “everyone” knows it to be so.

It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to read and comment on the chapters in this section. Some of the chapters provide superb summaries and updates on innovative psychoanalytic research programs. Others provide comprehensive reviews of the research on the psychoanalytic treatment of specifi c disorders. Together, they constitute an immensely satisfying summary of state-of-the-art research findings on psychoanalytic process and outcome.

The region of intersection between neurobiological research and psychoanalysis is fertile and growing. As every chapter in this section attests, both empirical methods and psychoanalytic theories have advanced toward a kind of interaction that would have delighted Sigmund Freud. While this area of research grows and finds its identity, perhaps the greatest challenge will be for it to define its goals.

There was a time when psychoanalytic clinicians, perhaps appropriately, could neglect findings of psychoanalytic treatment research. The chapters in this section clearly attest to the fact that those days are long gone. Indeed, as is demonstrated by each of these chapters, psychoanalytic treatment research not only may inform clinical practice, but also has the potential to change psychoanalytic practice. In fact, there is no point in denying that psychoanalytic practice has already changed under the influence of research findings, both explicitly and implicitly, and will continue to be changed by research.