A careful and important blog post about a new research initiative at the National Institute of Mental Health has become, in the hands of New Scientist, a "bombshell" that "denounced" the forthcoming update of the psychiatric diagnostic manual.
This histrionic description seems out of character for New Scientist, which is ordinarily a very good science magazine. Here's the lede:
The world's biggest mental health research institute is abandoning the new version of psychiatry's "bible" – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, questioning its validity and stating that "patients with mental disorders deserve better." This bombshell comes just weeks before the publication of the fifth revision of the manual, called DSM-5.
The story is reporting on a blog post written by the NIMH's director, Thomas Insel, in which he discusses a new NIMH research program "to transform diagnosis by incorporating genetics, imaging, cognitive science," and other information to "lay the foundation for a new classification system."
This is what Andy Coughlan and Sara Reardon in the New Scientist call a "bombshell." It is an important new research direction, especially so because it comes from the director of an institute that supports a lot of research. But the idea has been in the air for a long time, and Insel is not the only one to subscribe to it. Indeed, Coughlan and Reardon say so: "Prominent psychiatrists contacted by New Scientist broadly support Insel's bold initiative." Is it a "bold" initiative? I might not object to that adjective if it wasn't throwing fuel on a story that was already overheated. But I don't like it here.
Further, many psychiatrists have questioned the validity of the psychiatric diagnostic manual, known as the DSM-5. It's hard to imagine anyone who would disagree with the idea that "patients with mental disorders deserve better."
Insel's post is important, yes. But a "bombshell"? Sorry, New Scientist. It isn't.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply