&gt; If you have evidence citing that it was because of phony diagnoses, I&#x27;d be interested in seeing it.<p>Here&#x27;s an article by Allen Frances, who you may recognize as the editor of DSM-IV:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nypost.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;04&#x2F;24&#x2F;americas-false-autism-epidemic&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nypost.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;04&#x2F;24&#x2F;americas-false-autism-epidemic&#x2F;</a><p>Frances is very outspoken about this issue, and interestingly, he was one of the primary advocates for the inclusion of Asperger&#x27;s in DSM-IV. His outlook has, needless to day, changed completely, and the expression &quot;phony epidemic&quot; originates with him.<p>&gt; Anyhow, saying the science is not being done is just absurd.<p>Not at all. Many people and organizations are still treating Autism as though it&#x27;s a mental condition. Evidence strongly suggests that it&#x27;s a physical condition with mental symptoms. Once we accept that it&#x27;s an organic ailment, real scientific progress will begin, and people will be less likely to unfairly stigmatize those suffering from it as though they&#x27;re &quot;mental&quot;.<p>As I said above, this process has scarcely begun. And &quot;diagnosing&quot; many bright people with Asperger&#x27;s (including Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Bill Gates) perversely turned the condition into a status symbol among impressionable young people.<p>&gt; I think you are over-estimating the negative impact of having a broader diagnosis spectrum.<p>The issue is whether we&#x27;re focusing on evidence instead of anecdotes. At the moment, opinion rules. Remember that the content of DSM-5 was established with votes, not scientific study outcomes. This is one of the reasons the DSM is being abandoned by the N.I.M.H.:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;elements&#x2F;the-rats-of-n-i-m-h" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;elements&#x2F;the-rats-of-n-i-m-h</a>