Who writes the diagnostic manual, and who pays them
Sixty-nine percent of the DSM-5 task force had financial ties to industry. The manual's publisher says 72 percent reported none - and both figures are correct.
We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: The DSM panel counts are from 2006 and 2012 - historical, not current. The American Psychiatric Association's rebuttal is shown beside the Cosgrove counts because the two figures count different groups in different years, and both are correct as stated.
Cosgrove and Krimsky counted the industry ties of the people who write the DSM, the book that defines psychiatric diagnoses.
Significant findings
They found ties for 56% of the 170 DSM-IV panel members, and for 69% of the DSM-5 task force.
That included every member of the DSM-IV mood-disorders and schizophrenia panels.
The American Psychiatric Association publishes the manual. It answered that "in 2012, 72 percent of the 153 members report no relationships with the pharmaceutical industry during the previous year."
Both are right, because they count different groups. The 69% is the small task force. The 72% is task force and work-group members together, in a different year.
Note that this is the American Psychiatric Association, not the American Psychological Association, which has no DSM role.
Worth asking
A disclosed tie is disclosure, not proof that money changed a diagnosis, and nothing here says it did. What is worth knowing is who paid the people who drew the lines.
If a diagnosis is on the table, ask what specifically led to it, and what would have pointed somewhere else.
Source
A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members' Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists — Cosgrove L, Krimsky S (2012)
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190
How this was scored
- Study design
- not recorded
- Funding
- not recorded
- Published in
- not recorded
- Sample size
- not recorded
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- not recorded
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
We have not finished checking this source, so there is no scoring to show yet. “We have not checked this yet” and “this is disputed” are different statements, so no scored band is shown rather than a low one.
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published August 31, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
Resolv rates this source "not yet assessed". We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. One caveat travels with that badge: The DSM panel counts are from 2006 and 2012 - historical, not current. The American Psychiatric Association's rebuttal is shown beside the Cosgrove counts because the two figures count different groups in different years, and both are correct as stated. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members' Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists — Cosgrove L, Krimsky S (2012). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.