r/DrugNerds

Abstract >To assess the extent and types of financial ties to industry of panel and task force members of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, text revision (DSM-5-TR), published in 2022.

...

The DSM was written with the involvement of $14.2 million in undisclosed industry compensation. The full extent of this is outlined in this article.

The author outlined their report here.

>What should readers take away from your report?

>The DSM has been referred to as the "bible" of psychiatry and industry influence over the development of this diagnostic guideline can have a profound effect on public health (e.g., by broadening diagnostic categories and influencing what medications will be prescribed and covered by insurance). Thus, it is critical that this psychiatric taxonomy is free of industry influence, or even the appearance of such influence. There is an abundance of research documenting the impact of financial conflicts of interest on medical literature, including randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and clinical diagnostic and practice guidelines. Such research has consistently shown that conflicts of interest lead to subtle but impactful pro-industry thinking and conclusions.

N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N'-phenyl-N"-(pyrimidin-2-ylmethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine [ASP2905] is a potent and selective inhibitor of the potassium voltage-gated channel subfamily H member 3 (KCNH3) that was originally identified in our laboratory. KCNH3 is concentrated in the forebrain, and its overexpression in mice leads to cognitive deficits. In contrast, Kcnh3 knockout mice exhibit enhanced performance in cognitive tasks such as attention. These data suggest that KCNH3 plays important roles in cognition. Here we investigated the neurochemical and neurophysiological profiles of ASP2905 as well as its effects on cognitive function, focusing on attention. ASP2905 (0.0313 and 0.0625 mg/kg, po) improved the latent learning ability of mice, which reflects attention. Microdialysis assays in rats revealed that ASP2905 increased the efflux of dopamine and acetylcholine in the medial prefrontal cortex (0.03, 0.1 mg/kg, po; 0.1, 1 mg/kg, po, respectively). The activities of these neurotransmitters are closely associated with attention. We used a multiple-trial passive avoidance task to investigate the effects of ASP2905 on inattention and impulsivity in juvenile stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats. ASP2905 (0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg, po) significantly prolonged cumulative latency as effectively as methylphenidate (0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg, sc), which is the gold standard for treating ADHD. Further, ASP2905, amphetamine, and methylphenidate significantly increased the alpha-band power of rats, suggesting that ASP2905 increases arousal, which is a pharmacologically important activity for treating ADHD. In contrast, atomoxetine and guanfacine did not significantly affect power. Together, these findings suggest that ASP2905, which acts through a novel mechanism, is as effective for treating ADHD as currently available drugs such as methylphenidate.

• doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.814763

Abstract: >The contemporary conceptualization of ADHD as a complex, multifactorial neurodevelopmental disorder cannot be understood as such without a complex assemblage of political, economic, and cultural processes that deem the conceptualization to be valuable and useful. In this article we use the notion of psychiatrization as a lens through which to see parts of these processes that make up ADHD what it is. In the first part of the article, we critically assess the scientific basis of the ADHD diagnosis via examining its diagnostic criteria as presented in the current fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the so called “Bible” of modern psychiatry. The second part of the article asks what is done with the ADHD diagnostic entity and with the idea that it represents a natural neurodevelopmental state within an individual—something an individual has—as represented in the DSM-5. Drawn from our previous research, we analyze how ADHD becomes real in discourse practice as a powerful semiotic mediator through analysis of the various functions and forms in which it takes shape in institutional, social, and individual levels. 

...

>Quasi-Scientific Basis of ADHD in DSM-5

>The DSM is regarded as western psychiatry's “bible” (Horwitz, 2021). From the publication of its third edition in 1980 and on, DSM committed to a “neo-Kraepelinian,” cause-effect biomedical framework (Jacobs and Cohen, 2012). This framework embraces the assumptions that “psychiatry is a branch of medicine and treats people who are sick, there is a boundary between the normal and the sick, there are discrete mental illnesses, psychiatrists should concentrate on biological aspects of mental illnesses, and diagnostic criteria should be codified” (Jacobs and Cohen, 2012, p. 88). The publication of the manual's fifth edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) immediately provoked an unprecedented—both in size and intensity—criticism from within and outside psychiatry (e.g., Frances, 2013; Kirk et al., 2013; Timimi, 2013; Wakefield, 2013; Gambrill, 2014; Lacasse, 2014).

...

>Prescriptions of Normality

>Disorders cannot be defined in the absence of social values and notions of normality (Horwitz and Wakefield, 2012). As Bowden (2014, p. 434) points out in his paper on sociological accounts of disorder, “[i]t is not that objective physical states are identifiable as disorder, only then to provoke moral quandaries, or then translated into ‘lived experience.' Rather, any demarcation of behavior as disorder is meaningful only because of a normative context.” Hence, ascriptions of disorder essentially implicate value judgments about behaviors that are undesirable. Certain behaviors are regarded as rule-breaking and thus undesirable and deviant, and it is only through this devaluation that they can be characterized as symptoms of a disorder.

...

>Inadequate Attention to Context and Agency

>DSM-5 portrays an ethnocentric (Bredström, 2019) and “an extraordinarily sanitized, asocial view of the human condition” (Jacobs and Cohen, 2012, p. 90). The diagnostic rationale of the DSM-5 for ADHD is subject to the fundamental attribution error. The fundamental attribution error suggests that observers attribute other people's behavior primarily to dispositional (internal) causes, rather than to situational (external) causes (Ross, 1977). As Kirk et al. (2013) explain, “descriptive psychiatry requires the implausible belief that the meaning and causes of observable behaviors can be understood and used as symptoms of mental disorder without paying attention to the social context of the behaviors themselves, and of course the meaning of the behaviors to the person and those who observe the person” (p. 168). 

...

>Description Is Not Explanation

>Descriptive diagnoses do not have any explanatory power. Instead, they are prone to the Begging the Question Fallacy, that is circular reasoning (Tait, 2009). Children have a disorder because they present the behaviors which define it: “The child often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities because she has ADHD and she has ADHD because she does not sustain her attention in tasks or play activities.” As Pérez-Álvarez (2017, p. 2) notes “the symptoms are the guarantee of the diagnostic category, which in turn is invoked to explain the symptoms in an endless loop.”

...

>How Does ADHD Become Real? Functions and Forms of the Diagnostic Entity

>Thus, no matter how influential the idea of ADHD as a natural state within an individual is (i.e., text), it only materializes if recognized as such in practices of institutions (e.g., law, healthcare, welfare, education, and parenting), pertinent professionals (clinicians, physicians, educators, social workers, etc.), or laypeople (e.g., family members, peers, or the one being diagnosed). The idea of ADHD as a complex, multifactorial neurodevelopmental disorder becomes real via performance or enaction in material interactions with ideological conventions and power relations, with agents empowered to push these ideologies to action (e.g., clinicians, teachers, parents, interest groups) and with the ones being diagnosed.

https://www.euda.europa.eu/news/2026/eu-controls-nine-drug-precursors-following-first-euda-assessments_en

The European Commission has taken a major step to introduce EU-wide controls on nine high-risk precursor chemicals used in illicit drug production via new legislation published this week. The Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/314 (1) builds on the findings of the first EU-level precursor assessments carried out by the European Union Drugs Agency (EUDA) in 2025 (see news item).

Eight of the precursors in question are linked to the production of four synthetic cathinones (3-CMC, 3-MMC, 4-CMC, 4-MMC), while one substance (phenyl-2-nitropropene) is used in amphetamine production.

The nine newly controlled substances are:

• Phenyl-2-nitropropene (for amphetamine)
• 2-bromo-4′-chloropropiophenone (for 4-CMC)
• 4′-chloropropiophenone (for 4-CMC)
• 2-bromo-3′-methylpropiophenone (for 3-MMC)
• 3′-methylpropiophenone (for 3-MMC)
• 2-bromo-4′-methylpropiophenone (for mephedrone / 4-MMC)
• 4′-methylpropiophenone (for mephedrone / 4-MMC)
• 2-bromo-3′-chloropropiophenone (for 3-CMC)
• 3′-chloropropiophenone (for 3-CMC)

The regulation will apply from 18 September 2026, with a four-month transition period for industry to adapt to the new requirements. It comes as illicit drug production continues to expand within the EU, particularly of synthetic stimulants such as amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA and synthetic cathinones. In 2023, 53 synthetic cathinone production sites, some of which were large-scale, were dismantled in the EU, with the majority located in Poland.

The EUDA’s expanded competence in the area of drug precursors entered into force in July 2024. Under the EUDA regulation (Article 14), the agency supports the European Commission and Member States by monitoring precursors used in the production of both controlled illicit drugs and new psychoactive substances (NPS).

Precursor assessments provide evidence on how these chemicals are used, trafficked and distributed and explore the potential impact of chemical, pharmaceutical and research sectors. They are intended to support a consistent EU‑wide understanding of precursor‑related risks and to provide a scientific basis for regulatory and policy decisions at EU level, particularly in relation to scheduling and control measures.

Drug precursors are substances essential to the manufacture of synthetic drugs such as amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA and synthetic cathinones, and to the processing of cocaine and heroin. Effective regulation of these chemicals that may be exploited for illicit drug manufacture is essential for early detection of emerging risks and for preventing the diversion of these substances into illicit supply chains.

Notes

^(Regulation EU 2026/314, which will apply as of 18 September 2026, amends the existing drug precursors framework under Regulations EC No. 273/2004 on the internal trade of drug precursors, and No 111/2005 on the trade between the Union and third countries. The European Commission has provided a 4-month transition period for economic operators to adapt to the new requirements. At the same time, the Commission continues the work on a broader revision of the EU’s precursor control framework. The draft proposal on monitoring and controlling drug precursors was published at the end of 2025. With this new regulation, the Commission aims to respond to shortcomings identified in the existing framework, including difficulties in addressing rapidly emerging “designer precursors” and inconsistencies in enforcement across Member States. It aims to strike a balance between preventing diversion into illicit drug production and preserving the legitimate industrial and commercial use of chemicals.)