The use of trauma interventions for victims of crime without adequate empirical support has become increasingly problematic over the last decade. It is proposed that pseudoscience in mental health trauma practice reflects a widening rift between research and practice. It may also be a by-product of the commercialization of the mental health profession. This article presents a discussion of the ethical and professional implications of pseudoscience and junk science in trauma practice. We argue that it is the professional and ethical responsibility of mental health practitioners to recognize scientific evidence and to conduct evidence-based trauma practice. With such knowledge, practitioners and service providers may be better equipped in the identification and avoidance of treatments with little or no scientific merit.