57% of Authors of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Have Conflict of Interest

Who would have guessed it?



Psychiatry manual under fire for authors’ industry ties

Authors of the new edition of the psychiatry manual are shown to have connections with drug companies raising transparency concerns.

March 14, 2012 17:37


pills on table

The revamped journal of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is under fire for its authors’ ties to drug companies. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

A new edition of a famed psychiatry handbook is under fire for its authors’ connections to drug companies.

According to professors who were in charge of reviewing the revamped Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which will appear next year, 57 per cent of the nearly 150 authors involved in the manual had links to industry.

According to the New Scientist, for the the fifth edition, American Psychiatric Association, the manual’s publisher, required authors to declare their financial ties to industry. It also limited the amount they could receive from drug companies to $10,000 a year and their stock holdings to $50,000.

“This is extremely problematic,” said Sheldon Krimsky, a bioethicist at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, to Nature. “For this type of document and its importance, there should be no conflicts of interest. The stakes are so high.”

The investigating team found that many of the authors with ties to industry wrote on illnesses whose first-line treatment tended to be prescription medications.

According to Nature, 83 per cent of the authors examining psychotic disorders and 100 per cent of those looking at sleep/wake disorders have ties to industry,

There is, however, no evidence that any of the authors acted unethically.

“Transparency alone can’t mitigate bias,” Lisa Cosgrove of Harvard University, who investigated the financial disclosures with Krimsky said, according to the New Scientist.

Writing in PloS Journal, the investigators warned that even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing, ties to drug companies might promote ”pro-industry habit of thought” among authors.

One response to this post.

  1. Has Dr George Hibbert any links with the charity Common Purpose, either directly or indirectly?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: