We received this request and would like to pass it along to anyone interested in participating in this study. Research into the causes of OCD can lead to better treatment. We hope that the research contributes new knowledge about OCD and that those who participate find the experience to be rewarding. Good luck!

Dear Drs. Smith and Elliot

Thank you for your recent posts on your blog about anxiety and OCD. Many of us have routines or even eccentric superstitions that get us through the day; we read our horoscopes every morning, keep our calendars clean and up-to-date, or pray each night. But for the 2.2 million American adults suffering from OCD, unceasing thoughts and compulsions can get in the way of living. These symptoms of OCD are not mere habits but persistent, distressing and, at times, debilitating impediments.

We have written extensively in this blog and in our books about the strong scientific evidence that supports cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as one of the most effective treatments for both anxiety and depression. CBT is so well studied and validated that frankly, we can’t imagine why it shouldn’t be the foundation of most treatment plans.

At the same time, we’ve regularly recommended mindfulness techniques such as meditation, yoga, and mindful acceptance to our clients (and we practice what we preach). Mindfulness oversimplified involves focusing on and accepting the present moment. Throughout the years we’ve attended numerous continuing education classes to learn more about mindfulness techniques. Mindfulness is a part of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBST). Wow, that’s a bunch of initials.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM IV), a book that defines and describes the symptoms of emotional problems, has been in the revision process for years. Health professionals (and insurance companies) routinely use the manual to guide diagnosis and treatment. Recently, considerable attention has been given to the proposed changes in preparation for the fifth edition of the book (to be released in 2013). The possible changes to the section on personality disorders will certainly generate much discussion and controversy.

A few years ago, I read an article by Scott Lilienfeld, Ph.D. called “When Worlds Collide” in the American Psychologist. Quite fascinating actually, but that’s not the point of this blog. In a section of his article, Dr. Lilienfeld noted that most academic departments of psychology as well as many other scientific disciplines, tend to strongly discourage their members from making efforts to educate the public about their discipline. In other words, they look down their noses at those who attempt to break down science and communicate its findings to the general public. They derisively call those who engage in such activity “popularizers.” Dr. Lilienfeld even noted that the National Academy of Science went so far as to expel Dr. Carl Sagan from membership apparently because of his popularizing activity, even though he had authored many articles in well-respected journals.

What does that make my wife and I, given that we write quite a few books in the For Dummies series (Wiley), which are obviously aimed at the general public? In other words, our books in this series have attempted to distill scientifically verified findings from the field while clarifying difficult concepts and making them easily digestible to the average person. We’re afraid it makes us unabashed “popularizers.” Is this really a terrible thing?