[geofft]

> The DSM is based off the "top" Psychiatrists at the time voting on the illnesses (literally), without scientific backing.

What, precisely, would provide scientific backing here, if a vote by professional scientists doesn't count? A vote by academics? A committee of academics, appointed by a prior generation? A team at Harvard, because Harvard is the oldest? A committee appointed by the government?

[Talanes]

I believe their problem was with the structure of the process, and not with the composition of the governing body.

[KerryJones]

As Talanes mentioned -- the problem is with the decision method not the governing body. Again, comparing to the medical industry, where doctors don't vote on the existence or not of a virus causing a problem.