SOME REASONS FOR THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING THE INSTITUTES FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF HUMAN POTENTIAL ARE EXPLORED. THE METHODS USED IN THE INSTITUTES ARE BASED ON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT POOR NEUROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION RESULTS FROM THE FAILURE TO PASS THROUGH A CERTAIN SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES IN MOBILITY AND LANGUAGE. THUS, PATTERNS ARE IMPOSED ON THE CHILD AS A CORRECTIVE MEASURE. OBJECTIONS BY PROFESSIONAL INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS CENTER AROUND THE FOLLOWING WHICH THEY FEEL CHARACTERIZE THE INSTITUTES' METHODS-- (1) A TENDENCY TO IGNORE THE NATURAL CLINICAL COURSE OF SOME PATIENTS WITH BRAIN INJURY, (2) THE ASSUMPTION THAT OTHER METHODS ARE SYMTOMATIC WHILE THE INSTITUTES' METHODS TREAT THE BRAIN ITSELF, (3) THE ASSUMPTION THAT BECAUSE THE FULL POTENTIAL OF THE BRAIN IS NOT KNOWN, A CHILD NOT GENETICALLY DEFECTIVE MAY HAVE ABOVE AVERAGE POTENTIAL, (4) MAKING PARENTS THERAPISTS, (5) FORCEFULLY PREVENTING SELF-MOTIVATED CHILD ACTIVITIES, (6) ASSERTIONS WHICH MAY INCREASE PARENTAL ANXIETY, (7) ASSUMPTIONS THAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE DUE TO SPECIFIC FACTORS, (8) THE TEST INSTRUMENT, AND (9) STATISTICAL DEFECTS. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT A MAJOR SOURCE OF NEGATIVE PROFESSIONAL FEELING WAS THE PUBLICITY GIVEN TO CLAIMS WHICH WERE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY DOCUMENTED. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED. THIS ARTICLE IS A REPRINT FROM THE "THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION," VOLUME 202, NUMBER 5, OCTOBER 30, 1967. (BK)