The Empirically Supported Treatment (EST) endeavour began with and has persisted through prodigious skepticism among practising clinical psychologists. Despite such criticism, however, the advent of managed care guidelines, growing emphasis on biological psychiatry, promotion of scientific interests, and the need for better patient care have validated the importance of this new conception of treatment to the field of psychology. The arguments held by proponents and opponents of the EST movement are delineated and analysed to more fully conceptualise the intricacies beneath the debate. This article is an attempt to clarify the validity and utility of both positions, and to promote understanding of the important implications that follow from endorsement of either perspective. The article closes with a discussion of the ways in which the value of both positions may be integrated into a cohesive and useful model for clinical research and practice, and provides recommendations and projections for future psychotherapy research.