This week, we interview Professor Jim van Os. Professor van Os is Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Psychology at Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands, and Visiting Professor of Psychiatric Epidemiology at King’s College, Institute of Psychiatry, London.  He trained in Psychiatry in Casablanca, Bordeaux and the Institute of Psychiatry and the Maudsley Royal Hospital in London. In 2011, he was elected member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW); he appears on the 2014 Thomson-Reuter Web of Science list of the world’s most influential scientific minds of our time. He is Director of Psychiatric Services at Maastricht University Medical Centre and runs a service for treatment-resistant depression and first episode psychosis. I was keen to ask professor van Os about his views on biological psychiatry, why we should sometimes challenge schizophrenia, psychosis and other diagnostic terminology and how he sees the future of mental healthcare. In this episode, we discuss: How Jim became interested in Psychology and Psychiatry, partly because of the experiences of family members That Jim felt that training in many parts of the world allowed him to see variations in psychiatric models and this led to him questioning the biological model That Jim also saw how dominant the prescribing of medication but noticed the wide variation in practices How Jim observed in France a willingness by the treating doctors to accept that they didn’t know what the root cause of a mental health difficulty That some of the diagnoses that psychiatrists rely on are actually cultural agreements between professionals and that if a patient accepts the idea that they have a diseased brain, it can be limiting for that patient That we should be able to admit that we don’t know causes but we can still help and support people who struggle with their mental health That there is a 25% yearly prevalence of mental disorders, but many nations have a capacity for only 4% to 6% of the general population That selection criteria to get help and support with their mental health just don’t work because we cannot precept outcomes for people That there are interesting developments in eCommunities where people can participate in online communities to share experiences, for example ‘Proud to be Me’ in the Netherlands. That diagnoses are starting to function as an economic measurement of mental illness and treatment and some cannot access treatment without a diagnosis, which perpetuate the diagnostic paradigm That there were attempts in the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM V) discussions to adopt ranges or dimensions of disorders, but the proposal was shot down That it would have been historic if dimensions were adopted in the DSM because then the discussion between the clinician and the patient would have had to change That there is some dimensionality in DSM V, represented as ‘spectrum disorders’ which are the first step towards acknowledging the variations inherent in human experiences That Jim saw in his own family that the initial ‘relief’ of receiving a diagnosis was undone when more and more diagnoses were added That a label of Schizophrenia can mean that other people do not know what to expect and find it difficult to relate psychologically to that person and their experiences That the Maastricht User Research Centre has been discussing the language used in psychiatry, in particular the terms psychosis and schizophrenia and trying to find more helpful terms, for example hyper-meaning That sometimes terms such as ‘susceptibility’ and ‘syndrome’ are far more helpful than giving someone the message that they have a brain disease   That biological psychiatry has been trying to reverse engineer and validate the concept of schizophrenia by investigating case control differences That there is more awareness developing about the critical appraisal of diagnostic terminology That the mental health sector s