Dr Paul Keedwell on BBC World

We need to put more resources in to training and ATTRACT more psychiatrists in to the profession. This will not be done by attacking professionals who work in a difficult job in the public sector and suffer a lot of mental illness themselves. Consider that 94% of those taking the first stage of the professional psychiatry exams in the UK (MRCPSych) last year were not from the UK - British graduates no longer regard psychiatry as an attractive option. The reason - attacks in the British media.

Don't keep kicking UK psychiatrists for what happens in the US. UK psychiatry is far more stringent in its deinition of ADHD and far fewer medications are prescribed for children here. Good psychiatrists do try to be cautious in prescribing. We need more good psychiatrists, who can assess more thoroughly the positive and negative aspects of any medication.

Yes, and drugs can save lives. A risk vs benefit analysis is needed for every patient. Severe psychiatric illness can be deadly and causes more disability than any other form of illness. It is a disgrace, therefore, that psychiatry is so under-funded. It costs millions to develop drugs and not all Pharma is evil. If we mistrust Pharma companies we need to put more money in to independent psychiatric research. Giving up on medical treatments for severe illness is not an option.

PKeedman You said in the Guardian article
"I...also have a psychology degree and a natural tendency to rebel against 'perceived wisdom'. How are you rebelling against 'perceived wisdom' by accepting (as many others do) fraudulent science as acceptable medicine?

I am trying to understand, but can't see how academics can accept drugs that come onto the market via deception, fraud, conflicts of interest, ghostwriters and lack of transparency? For instance: Olanzapine.

I'm not as confident as VideoLex that Paul Keedwell's views will help bring major improvements in therapeutic practices, having read Dr Keedwells enthusiasm for the use of modern antipsychotics and his criticism of talking therapies as an alternative, in "Psychiatry on the couch". Manipulation, and/or lack of disclosure, of clinical data is not "science" and having a 'faith' in products known to be produced unscientifically is in itself unscientific. More research needed perhaps.

A very good thing about Paul Keedwell is that he is helping to bring psychiatry into a more integrated relationship with evolutionary biology, and therefore with the mainstream of science generally. All credit to the groundbreaking work of Paul J. Watson and Edward H. Hagen, who have both made groundbreaking contributions in this field. As experiments based around evolutionary theory improve our understanding of the human mind, there are bound to be major improvements in therapeutic practices.