Addendum: By drilling down on the separate website set up by the American Psychiatric Association, one can find the latest disclosures for members of the working groups that proposed changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - 5. See this webpage.

The American Psychiatric Association yesterday gave the press an advance view of its proposed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and the reports were highly skeptical. Will Tiger Woods soon be diagnosed with "hypersexual disorder"? He could be if the proposals go into effect. The APA will be accepting comments through April.

The news reports barely noted the fact that dozens of psychiatrists who serve on the DSM-V (it's the fifth edition) task force and working groups have financial ties to the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, as well as to numerous patient advocacy groups, which themselves are often funded by industry. A quick check of the APA website reveals that none of the financial disclosures for committee members have been updated since 2008, when the committees were intially appointed.

The APA promises to "relaunch" the website later today. Hopefully, the update will include new biographies and financial disclosures for all the committee members. It is crucial that the disclosures include all relationships with industry during 2009 and 2010 -- the period when the committees were actively engaged in coming up with the proposals.

For instance, the closely-watched Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic and Dissociative Disorders Workgroup's 14 members included at least five six members with current ties to major pharmaceutical companies and two more with financial arrangements that dated from as recently as 2008. Did these members refuse to take industry money over the past two years while the workgroup was meeting?

While all have agreed to limit their consulting relationships with companies to $10,000 a year during the DSM-V deliberations, reasonable people may differ over appointment of such individuals in the first place, it was unwise for them to continue those financial relationships once they were appointed. Consumer groups and critics within the profession are bound to raise questions about the role those individuals played during the deliberations. Their legitimate complaints will bathe the recommendations in a layer of doubt, which could have been avoided had the APA adhered to a strict no conflicts-of-interest policy.