Research indicates that efforts to reconcile science and practice in psychology since the Boulder conference in 1949 have mostly failed (Hayes, 1999). The scientist-professional (SP) ideal states that professionals should consume new research, evaluate their own methods, as well as research and share their findings with other professionals and scientists (Hayes et al, 1999). The SP gap has implications in a managed care system as it can hold practitioners accountable, ensure research is relevant to practice, and provide structure and a theoretical framework for practitioners; without these, we run the risk of losing responsibility, the profession to the dominant scientific paradigm and government funding (Perez, 1999). Such barriers to a practice-integrated model include, a lack of understanding of the model, inherent division due to naturally different interests of scientists and practitioners, inefficiencies of traditional evidence in the clinical context, and different epistemological attitudes of scientists and practitioners. In light of this, it will be argued that in the era of managed care, a more pragmatic local clinical model is suitable for psychological practice. The SP gap begins to create in graduate programs due to lack of understanding and therefore implementation of the model. (Belar, 2000). The role of the professional scientist has often been misinterpreted in too narrow a sense, leading the two roles to be treated by program coordinators as competing paradigms (Stricker, 1997). This has led to programs that focus heavily on scientists or professionals with little integration. Many programs focus on the scientific paradigm because of Boulder's assumption that most psychology majors would follow a... middle of paper... not romance. American Psychologist, 54, 205-206.Routh, DK (2000) Training in clinical psychology. A history of ideas and practices before 1946. American Psychologist, 55, 236-241. Simionato (1991) The scientist-professional model and its critics. Australian Psychologist, 36, 164-169.Stricker, G. (1997) Are science and practice commensurable? American Psychologist, 52, 442-448.Stricker, G. (2000) The scientist-practitioner model: Gandhi was right again. American Psychologist, 50, 995-1002.Stricker, G., & Trierweiler, S.J. (1995) The local clinician scientist. A bridge between science and practice. American Psychologist, 50, 995-1002. Zachar, P., & Leong, F. T. L. (2000). A 10-year longitudinal study of scientists' and practitioners' interests in psychology: Evaluating the Boulder model. Professional psychology: research and practice, 31, 575-580.