The field of clinical psychology is in an uproar over the resignation of two members of the group revising the field’s basic manual for diagnosing mental disorders.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

But is it science? The field of clinical psychology is in an uproar over the resignation of two members of the group revising the field’s basic manual for diagnosing mental disorders.

As the article notes, “An inaccurate [manual] could lead to misdiagnosed patients receiving useless or even harmful treatments.” The protest letter, written by the two resigning members, also includes this gem:

As it stands now, the [manual’s] personality section is not readable, much less usable. It will be ignored by clinicians and will do grave harm to research. This is the sad product of small group of cloistered … “experts” stubbornly ignoring the sharp criticism from within their own group and the near universal rejection of their proposals by everyone else in the field.

Kind of reminds me of climategate. I wonder who is funding this working group.

Share

One comment

  • David K. Williams

    It goes beyond clinical psychology to include psychiatry, general medicine, psychiatric social work, school psychology, and other related areas. “Lack of scientific rigor” seems to be a communicable disease in its own right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *