require competency as ABA therapists are "not required to take even a single class on autism, brain function or child development", and its view of the client as the parent meaning that requiring "client consent" only requires parental consent, not the person receiving services. Similarly, because the parent is seen as the client, the goals that are set under the ethical code are according to the client's needs, which often means that focusing on changing autistic behaviors for the benefit of the parent and not the child is considered ethical. Another criticism of the Lovaas Method is Lovaas's connection with gay conversion therapy, using his own behavior modification techniques seen in ABA in The Feminine Boy project. Similarities in gay conversion therapy to making boys indistinguishable from their heterosexual peers have been drawn with Lovaas' belief that ABA makes "autistic children indistinguishable from their normal friends." According to social worker and researcher Jake Pyne, ableism is the reason why ABA continues to be practiced in some jurisdictions where conversion therapy is prohibited, despite underlying similarities. One study revealed extensive undisclosed conflict of interest (COI) in published ABA studies. 84% of studies published in top behavioral journals over a period of one year had at least one author with a conflict of interest involving their employment, either as an ABA clinical provider or a training consultant to ABA clinical providers. However, only 2% of these studies disclosed the COI. Some bioethicists argue that employing ABA violates the principles of justice and nonmaleficence and infringes on the autonomy of autistic children, and their parents as well. Another concern is that ABA research only measures behavior as a means of success, which has led to a lack of qualitative research about autistic experiences of ABA, a lack of research examining the internal effects of ABA and a lack of research for autistic children who are non-speaking or have comorbid intellectual disabilities (which is concerning considering this is one of the major populations that intensive ABA focuses on). Research is also lacking about whether ABA is effective long-term and very little longitudinal outcomes have been studied. One more area of critique has been the "ideological warfare" surrounding ABA and TEACCH, despite the philosophies and practices of the two approaches not necessarily being in opposition. The rhetoric surrounding ABA was criticized by The British Institute of Learning Disabilities, including parents and professionals that claim that