DSM-5’s “Speculative” 2002 Diagnostic System Based On Expected Gene Findings

Jay Joseph, Psy.D.

In 2002 the developers of DSM-5 published A Research Agenda for DSM-V, at a time when gene discoveries appeared imminent to the leaders of psychiatry.1  This publication, edited by DSM-5 architects David Kupfer, Michael First, and Darrell Regier, consisted of six “white papers” related to the development of the DSM-5.2  One of these white papers, by Dennis Charney and his colleagues, was entitled “Neuroscience Research Agenda to Guide Development of a Pathophysiologically Based Classification System.”3  The authors expected that in the near future, psychiatric diagnoses would be based on neurobiological and genetic discoveries.  According to Charney and colleagues, “The field is getting closer” to gene discoveries, “and new advances in genetics (including the availability of the human genome sequence) portend rapid progress.”  Like many in psychiatry, including especially its subfield of psychiatric genetics, the Human Genome Project’s sequencing of the human genome was expected to lead to the rapid identification of the genes they believed underlie psychiatric disorders.  According to a leading group of psychiatric genetic researchers, writing in 1999, “From the perspective of psychiatric genetics, the Human Genome Project is an immense factory producing and refining the tools we will need to discover the genes that cause mental illness.”4

Charney and colleagues put forward a new “speculative outline,” which envisioned a future DSM-5 practice of classifying disorders on the basis of a revised Axis I that would be “set aside for recording the patient’s genotype, identifying symptom- or disease-related genes, resiliency genes, and genes related to therapeutic responses and side effects to specific psychotropic drugs” (emphasis in original).  The authors speculated that the future DSM-5, with a projected publication date of 2010, would be based on a revised five-axis system based on expected gene discoveries. Charney and colleagues’ 2002 “speculative outline” reads as follows:

“Outline for a Possible Future Multiaxial System”

    • “Axis I:  Genotype.  Identification of disease- /symptom-related genes. Identification of   resiliency/protective genes.  Identification of genes related to therapeutic responses to and side effects of specific psychotropic drugs.”
    • “Axis II: Neurobiological phenotype. Identification of intermediate phenotypes (neuroimaging, cognitive function, emotional regulation) related to genotype.  Relates to targeted pharmacotherapy.”
    • “Axis III: Behavioral phenotype.  Range and frequency of expressed behaviors associated with genotype, neurobiological phenotype, and environment.  Relates to targeted therapies.”
    • “Axis IV: Environmental modifiers or precipitants.  Environmental factors that alter the behavioral and neurobiological phenotype.”
    • “Axis V: Therapeutic targets and response.”

This outline of a future DSM-5 diagnostic scheme leaned heavily on genetics, neurobiology, and psychopharmacological interventions.  People’s complex life experiences, relationships, and traumas, in addition to their social and political environments, were now reduced to “modifiers or precipitants” of the actions of the expected identification of genes that underlie their psychiatric disorders.

A dozen or so years ago, at least some of the DSM-5 architects believed that genes would at long last be identified and would be integrated into the next version of the DSM.  As we know, this did not happen.  The DSM-5 was finally published in 2013 and the multiaxial diagnostic system, used in DSM III through DSM-IV-TR (1980-2013), was completely eliminated.  A major reason appears to be psychiatry’s unexpected failure to uncover genes for its disorders, a failure that critics have argued for decades is the result not of illusive genes or “missing heritability,” but rather of its misplaced faith in the results of previous family, twin, and adoption studies.  Although Kupfer and the “DSM-5 Task Force” launched the DSM-5 in the spring of 2013 by admitting that “we’re still waiting” for the discovery of “biological and genetic markers” for psychiatric disorders, it is very unlikely that, in those heady early days of the “post-genomic era,” he and his colleagues could have imagined their inability over a decade later, in an official APA statement, to name even one genetic variant that caused a psychiatric disorder.5



1 Kupfer et al. (2002). A Research Agenda for DSM-V. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

2 The APA had originally planned to continue its practice of using Roman numerals for the DSM, and in the early stages of research the Fifth Edition was called “DSM-V.” It was later decided to use Arabic numbers, leading to the current DSM-5.

3 Charney et al. (2002). Neuroscience research agenda to guide development of a pathophysiologically based classification system. In Kupfer et al. (Eds.),  A Research Agenda for DSM-V (pp. 31-83). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

4 Faraone, Tsuang, & Tsuang (1999). Genetics of Mental Disorders. New York: The Guilford Press.

5 American Psychiatric Association (2013, May 3rd). Chair of DSM-5 task force discusses future of mental health research; Statement by David Kupfer, M.D. American Psychiatric Association [Press release]

Support MIA

Enjoyed what you just read? Consider a donation to help us continue to produce content, provide up-to-date research news, offer continuing education courses, and continue building a community for exploring alternatives to the current paradigm of mental health. All donations are tax deductible.

Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Donation Total: $20.00


  1. Thanks for this article, Jay. I’m going to keep this in my mental file, to be used in any future discussion about the DSM 5.

    I just love DSM 5, and the ammunition it gives those of us fighting psychiatry’s abuses. I think we should never stop talking about it. I have a rather conservative but open-minded friend, and when I tell her about some of the DSM diagnostic categories, she is shocked to learn she has about three or four “mental disorders.” We should keep bringing this up to the general public nonstop. People should realize that they too are vulnerable to this nonsense, and how dangerous it is for EVERYONE.

    • Nice link, thank you, theinarticulatepoet. And thank you, Jay, for continuing to point out the lack of scientific validity of the DSM, and the psychiatric industry. As a mom whose children won gold awards (and was a judge) at the state science fair, it boggles my mind how completely unscientific psychiatric research studies are. And it’s obvious to me from reading Moncrieff’s and others’ books, this is a frustration within the field. But what’s truly heartbreaking, is Whitaker’s research is correct. The psychiatric industry, in actuality, has spent 60 years documenting the serious illnesses their drugs CAUSE. And created a bunch of non-medical illness disorders to railroad as many people onto their toxic drugs as possible, because this is what is profitable. I understand it’s highly embarrassing for the psychiatric, medical, and pharmaceutical industries to confess to, but it is the truth.

  2. Jay, I truly appreciate your effort to follow-up on your inital post in response to this (negative) scientific development. Hopefully, you will get back to us once the spinmaster efforts start to show up. First we will see more tenacious pre-emption of external criticism of psychiatry and more attacks on its critics. Then we’ll hear more about the growth in beneficial effects of compliance and the inevitably humane consequences of involuntary hospitalization. Then new visions of why we don’t need to know of lives once mental illness appears, just the nervous system and its hereditary features.

  3. David Kupfer did an interview where he claims that nothing has changed in 20 years. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/idagsidan/frustrerande-att-inte-psykiatrin-natt-langre_4048565.svd

    It is frustrating to stand by and watch obsolete psychiatrists in corrupt control of vital NEW information, and thus, keep people ignorant and bewildered. There have been many significant advances, especially in the field of psychopathy.

    Psychopathy is suspiciously left out of the Neurodevelopmental Disorders. (It is no longer considered to be Antisocial Personality Disorder.) Makes me think that inmates are running the asylum because psychopaths don’t want to be identified. Especially not those in power.

    Here is a page I created where I’ve gathered recent research on psychopathy, including “Identification of psychopathic individuals using pattern classification of MRI” https://nopsychos.wordpress.com/research/