November 2019
Reflections on DSM By: Samuel Miles, M.D. Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCLA I was recently asked to review an article which criticized psychiatric diagnoses, specifically the DSM-5, as not being scientific. My reaction was similar to the one I experience when I hear someone describe the current version of DSM as the “Bible” of psychiatry. I was amused (Is a beaker ‘scientific’?). As we know, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel (DSM) is a product of a committee process, with a goal of creating a reference for clinical practice and also for researchers to make accurate reproducible diagnoses of mental disorders. Therefore, in this way the DSM is a tool for scientific research, but it does not represent scientific truth. To the best of my knowledge none of the versions of DSM were delivered from the mouth of God. Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCLA I was recently asked to review an article which criticized psychiatric diagnoses, specifically the DSM-5, as not being scientific. My reaction was similar to the one I experience when I hear someone describe the current version of DSM as the “Bible” of psychiatry. I was amused (Is a beaker ‘scientific’?). As we know, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel (DSM) is a product of a committee process, with a goal of creating a reference for clinical practice and also for researchers to make accurate reproducible diagnoses of mental disorders. Therefore, in this way the DSM is a tool for scientific research, but it does not represent scientific truth. To the best of my knowledge none of the versions of DSM were delivered from the mouth of God. Article continued on Page 5
