After all this controversy and opposition, there is one thing (and one thing only) that will save the credibility of DSM 5 and guarantee its safety--a credible process of external scientific review. APA is conducting its own internal scientific review, but it strikes out badly on all four requirements that must be met before a review deserves to be taken seriously as a trustworthy stamp of approval.
The scientific review must be:
1) Open: But DSM 5 is engaged in the curious process of a confidential, secret scientific review. Real science and real scientific review are completely incompatible with secrecy.
2) Independent: But most of the people reviewing the much reviled DSM 5 suggestions have been closely involved in the development of DSM 5 and would have to recuse themselves if this were anything like an independent review.
3) Systematic: But the DSM 5 reviews show no method or thoroughness or consistency. Often most of papers cited were done by those making the proposals.
4) Rigorous: But the DSM 5 review process was discredited from its moment of birth. Its very first decision was to accept the scientific credentials of a new diagnosis invented six years ago and studied by just one group. This travesty could never have occurred were such an inadequate proposal exposed to external review.