The new Diag­nos­tic and Sta­tis­ti­cal Man­ual of Men­tal Dis­or­ders (DSM–5) is sched­uled to be released in May 2013. This recent Dana Foun­da­tion arti­cle points out the need of a fun­da­men­tally dif­fer­ent approach based on the new ways researchers use to study and under­stand men­tal ill­ness.

The prob­lem with the DSM-IV, our cur­rent shared diag­nos­tic lan­guage, is that a large and grow­ing body of evi­dence demon­strates that it does a poor job of cap­tur­ing either clin­i­cal and bio­log­i­cal real­i­ties. In the clinic, the lim­i­ta­tions of the cur­rent DSM-IV approach can be illus­trated in three salient areas: (1) the prob­lem of comor­bid­ity, (2) the wide­spread need for “not oth­er­wise spe­cific (NOS)” diag­noses, and (3) the arbi­trari­ness of diag­nos­tic thresholds.

What­ever the ulti­mate approach to the DSM-5, it is crit­i­cal that the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity escape the arti­fi­cial diag­nos­tic silos that con­trol so much research, ulti­mately to our detriment.

Key ques­tions: How can we give the research com­mu­nity not only per­mis­sion but also encour­age­ment to rethink the clas­si­fi­ca­tion of psy­chopathol­ogy? How can we encour­age sci­en­tific inno­va­tion while ensur­ing that clin­i­cians can still com­mu­ni­cate with patients and families—and also with insur­ance com­pa­nies, schools, and courts?

Be Socia­ble, Share!

•