New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Throughout History, Defining Schizophrenia Has Remained a Challenge [Timeline]

Less than 200 years ago schizophrenia emerged from a tangle of mental disorders known simply as madness. Today its diagnosis remains shrouded in ambiguity. Psychiatrists may discover that this disorder is not a single syndrome after all but a bundle of overlapping conditions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Less than two hundred years ago, schizophrenia emerged from a tangle of mental disorders known simply as madness. Yet its diagnosis remains shrouded in ambiguity. Only now is the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, psychiatrists’ primary guidebook, shedding the outdated, nineteenth-century descriptions that have characterized schizophrenia to this day. "There is substantial dissatisfaction with schizophrenia treated as a disease entity, it's symptoms are like a fever—something is wrong but we don't know what," says William Carpenter, a psychiatrist at the University of Maryland and chair of the manual’s Psychotic Disorder Workgroup. Psychiatrists may discover that this disorder is not a single syndrome after all but a bundle of overlapping conditions.

Daisy Yuhas is the former editor of Scientific American's Mind Matters. A freelance science journalist, Yuhas is author of the Kids Field Guide to Birds (Cool Springs Press, 2024).

More by Daisy Yuhas
SA Mind Vol 24 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Throughout History, Defining Schizophrenia Has Remained a Challenge [Timeline]” in SA Mind Vol. 24 No. 1 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican032013-4qKVGUVFfhzBJqnXmwLxhd

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe