Please know that I'm trying to agitate for a discussion and not merely being obtuse.

Does medicine not suffer from political, technological, and cultural influences, particularly influences that affect the generalizability of their results? One could argue that psychiatry, for example, suffers from an enormous pressure to further legitimize their field, pressure to find and publish statistically significant research, while they struggle to handle the lack of reliability in their data. As for political and technological influences, isn't the DSM-V substantively more a reflection of American conceptions of health than say, Chinese or Iranian? Are American conceptions more objective, or is it unfair to describe the DSM-V as American?

This is not dismiss the underlying biological nature of medicine (nor to criticize searching for objectivity in the face of towering subjectivity). But I see similarities in the hard science of biology as I do in the measurable behavior and amassable statistics of human economic activity. N.B. I am also the very first in line to point out that the squishiness of economics as it stands today is woefully un-predictive, if not downright dangerous -- a la Stalinism or the North Korean economic dogma -- and that a lot of professional economists are nothing more than a willing pardoner class, selling indulgences to the highest bidders from the "job creators".