DSM-5 Continues to Ignore Criticism From Petitioners

The petition to reform DSM 5 speaks with the powerful voice of more than 50 mental-health associations. Perhaps more important to APA's publishing ambitions and budgetary needs, it represents a significant percentage of the potential customers who eventually will have to decide whether or not DSM 5 is worth buying and using. Displaying its usual "the customer is always wrong" arrogance, APA has previously been  dismissive of the completely reasonable recommendation that there be an independent scientific review of all controversial DSM 5 suggestions.

Here is an excerpt of the petition's most recent letter to the APA and DSM 5 leadership by the authors of the petition (the fFull text of the letter is available here):




  • The cancellation of the second set of field trials.
  • The lack of formal forensic review.
  • Ad hominem responses to critics.




DSM 5 is taking the foolhardy step of alienating its users. Its responses to critics are framed in public-relations jargon convincing to no one outside its own inner circle. Instead of PR, we need straight answers to four questions:

  1. How can you rush a DSM 5 to print with such low reliability?

  • Why don't you delay publication to allow time for the quality-control step that was part of your own original plan?
  • APA's high-priced public-relations geniuses never address these questions, because not even the cleverest "image consultants" can turn this sow's ear into a silk purse.
