I have an article in the latest (Jan 2011) issue of Wired. It’s about the attempt to create a DSM-5. The process I witnessed makes the worst sausage factory look like a cupcake plant. You can read the article “The Book of Woe” in Wired, which I hear will be online soon–I’ll post the link. (Or you could buy the magazine, because much as information might want to be free, writers and editors want to eat.)

Anyway, a few items didn’t make it into the story. A couple of them are illustrative of just how hunkered down the American Psychiatric Association is, how doggedly determined the organization is to control the flow of information about the DSM, and how bad they are at doing it.

The story is largely about a group of unlikely DSM-5 dissidents–unlikely because they’re about as mainstream as psychiatrists get. Bob Spitzer and Al FRances, editors of the most recent revisions, Michael First, who was responsible for much of the criterion-writing in DSM-IV, and other long time psychiatric stalwarts are up in arms about DSM-5. About a year after they started their assault, the APA convened a committee to oversee the process–which was one of the suggestions the dissidents were making. The committee determined that the process was behind schedule and in disarray and thus publication of DSM-5 needed to be delayed by a year. When the APA heard from the factchecker that we were reporting that they had postponed publication in response to the dissidents the pr flack there insisted this was incorrect, that they had other reasons for convening the committee and for the delay, and that the timing was coincidental.

I guess you can’t blame them for this. Well, actually I think you can. What possible good does it do them to deny something so obvious? Clearly, it’s about pretending that the dissenters aren’t bothering them, that they’re so wrong they aren’t even worth listening to, and that just because the APA followed their suggestions, that doesn’t mean they were right. Which is such a ham-handed move. It reeks of petty squabble, of schoolyard brawl, of turf war.

Especially when you consider that the APA trustee who headed the oversight committee told me, on the record, that the committee was formed in order to address the concerns raised by Spitzer and Frances and the rest. She said it flat-out and unprompted, in passing really. I lucked out there–not being much of a reporter I didn’t even think to ask about something so obvious. So I didn’t even take note of it, and I’ll bet she didn’t either. I only remembered it when the APA started insisting that it wasn’t the case.

For various reasons, the magazine didn’t publish this part of the story, just let the APA “insist” that they weren’t listening, which is as stupid a strategy as one can imagine. Talk about drawing attention to yourselves in the wrong way! The APA can’t even get their propaganda straight.

Lea Carpenter, on Big Think, has a nice reading of my Harper’s piece. She compared me to David Foster Wallace, which made me blush. But I’m not complaining.

Well, it’s really yesterday’s news. According to US News and World Report, which got it from Science, scientists have a new theory about how antidepressants work: they increase the presence of a piece of RNA that interferes with the brain’s ability to manufacture the chemical that whisks serotonin out of the synapse. Less of that chemical, more serotonin pinging your receptors, less depression. Of course, every term in that equation is still in doubt. They’re not sure it’s really the “minimolecule” that causes the increased presence of serotonin, and they’re really not sure that increased serotonin cures depression.

Now, what’s really interesting about this–besides the discovery itself, which is undoubtedly interesting, especially if you’re into neuroscience–is that it’s, what, twenty-one years since Prozac came on the market, and they still don’t know how the SSRIs work. It’s a black box, and in this case the black box is your brain. I’d say the USN&WR buried the lede.

Evidently, my Harper’s article scooped the entire world by revealing, without even meaning to, some momentous news about our Secretary of State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEWR5Bz2lTM

Speaking of doubt, here’s a link to a new article of mine from the September issue of Harper’s. It’s about the way that psychotherapy has been taken captive by the bureaucrats and the positive thinkers. It also has a chilling story about the way Martin Seligman is trying to inoculate soldiers against PTSD.

The article is behind a pay wall. I’m sure someone will steal it soon enough and it will be available on the net. I’m also sure that I sound sanctimonious when I say this, but I do want to point out that sooner or later there won’t be anything left to blog about besides other bloggers. And that a subscription to Harper’s, or the New York Times, or any other “content provider” is relatively cheap, especially if the alternative is not to have them around. Plus it’s nice to actually hold something paper in your hands, even if it is bad for the trees.