{"id":42813,"date":"2014-01-03T13:30:27","date_gmt":"2014-01-03T18:30:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=42813"},"modified":"2014-01-03T13:46:25","modified_gmt":"2014-01-03T18:46:25","slug":"dsm-5-retrospective-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2014\/01\/03\/dsm-5-retrospective-iii\/","title":{"rendered":"DSM-5 retrospective III…"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
No retrospective of the DSM-5 process would be complete without a commentary from the summer of 2009, when things moved into the public arena. And there’s no better ringside commentator than Danny Carlat who was blogging the whole thing blow by blow. Senator Grassley’s Investigation was still in the news, and a few weeks before, Dr. Nemeroff’s pal Zach Stowe had been fingered for committing the same sins as his boss – unreported income for speaker gigs while on a grant from GSK. All hell broke loose when Allen Frances went public: <\/div>\n
\n
Psychiatry’s DSM-V Process: Now A Bar Room Brawl <\/a><\/div>\n
The Carlat Psychiatry Blog<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n
by Danny Carlat<\/div>\n
June 30, 2009 <\/div>\n
[full text online<\/a>]<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Psychiatry’s diagnostic manual is due for a revision. But what began as a group of top scientists reviewing the research literature has degenerated into a dispute that puts the Hatfield-McCoy feud to shame. The latest installment in this remarkable episode of American psychiatry involves an editorial by Dr. Allen Frances<\/a>, the chairman of the committee that created the current version of the the DSM, the DSM-IV. The editorial has not even been officially published [it is in press at Psychiatric Times<\/em>] but already it has made the rounds of the blogs and is being read and debated widely. Now, the APA has just released this rather stunning response<\/a>…<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
First, Carlat summarizes Dr. Frances’ criticisms of the developing DSM-5 [we know the back story from Greenberg’s 2010 article<\/a> in Wired]. <\/div>\n
\n
In his editorial, Dr. Frances criticizes the evolving DSM-V on multiple levels, and makes the following claims:<\/div>\n
• The process of writing the manual is less transparent and less inclusive than the process he oversaw when he chaired the DSM-IV committee.<\/div>\n
• The underlying science of psychiatry has not advanced enough to merit the kind of extreme makeover proposed by the DSM-V chairpeople:<\/div>\n