The field of domestic abuse abatement treatment programming is only a little more than two decades old. As a treatment field, abuse abatement approaches have been characterized more by philosophical and political analysis than by empirical analysis and systematically collected data. Research on men who batter their partners, as well as research on treatment, has been published for little more than 15 years. Batterer treatment standards have developed at this relatively early stage of relevant research in order to ensure accountability of the treatment programs to battered women and to the community, as well as to provide guidance in the protection of victims, hold abusers accountable, and eliminate questionable treatment practices. However well-intended, the establishment of such standards and their codification into policy and law creates some problems. One problem is with the term "standards" in itself, which implies that best practices have been determined and specified. They suggest a level of knowledge and certainty that may not, in fact, exist. Treatment standards also raise expectations in terms of professional liability, in that treatment providers will be reluctant to attempt innovative programs that may not comply with the standards, fearing criticism and ostracism within the treatment community. Further, standards can have a chilling effect on scientific inquiry to develop and determine the most effective, safe, and appropriate treatment approaches. Since standards often codify those treatment approaches that are not allowed as well as those that are, research on the disapproved approaches is made difficult. In many cases, treatment providers and community advocacy groups do not view researchers as allies in the effort to combat domestic violence. This article suggests how researchers can counter this impression and become more active in showing how research performs a necessary function in the development of effective means of preventing and treating domestic violence. 43 references