I'm glad you asked! I'll try to keep this short... Honestly, I'm not particularly interested in funding or the pharmaceutical industry. And I don't think funding research is going to help psychology be seen as a science. The problem lies within the field of psychology itself.

This bit stuck out to me... "Most experts feel the science of mental disorders lags behind other areas of medicine. The absence of biomarkers, the lack of valid diagnostic categories, and our limited understanding of the biology of these illnesses make targeted medication development especially difficult for mental disorders."

How true. How true... There has long been a divide in the field of psychology between clinical and scientific research. Scientists attest that research and proof are imperative in understanding and treating mental disorders. They favour tests, evidence. They therefore support medicinal treatments, as medicine is increasingly more evidence-based. Psychotherapies are less so. Clinicians rely on personal judgement, intuition, and experience when making decisions and less on evidence. Both have benefits and weaknesses. We don't know enough about the mind to be as precise as we are with other areas of the body. As we all know, not every bipolar or schizophrenic is the same or experiences symptoms the same. So one treatment may work better for one individual and not for another. This is especially true with personality disorders. So we do sometimes have to rely on experience. But we still need research and evidence to ensure that these treatments are working effectively and that they're worth our time and money. Furthermore, we need to ensure that they're not harming people (see the "false memories" incident involving allegations of child abuse). Unfortunately, however, these two areas don't communicate as well as they should.

This problem if compounded by lack of communication within research. Psychologists tend to stick with the methodology they were taught in grad school or when they were interning (self-report, survey, interview, case study, field experiment, neuro-imaging, etcetera). A single methodology is ineffective. If one were to implement two or more, the room for error would decrease, and we would be able to see the problem from several different angles.

Furthermore, psychologists tend to stay within their own sub-discipline. Cognitive psychologists communicate with other cognitive psychologists. Social psychologists with social psychologists. Evolutionary with evolutionary. And so on. Each sub-discipline uses its own terms, favours a certain methodology, and focuses on "pet theories." This makes it difficult for social psychologists to understand what the hell neuropsychologists are talking about, for example. And this, of course, can make it difficult for psychologists to understand one problem from the many different perspectives. The sub-disciplines also dislike any evidence that contradicts their pet-theories. Arguably, this may be why they stick to their own sub-disciplines. Inter-disciplinary research complicates things. There are so many ways to see the mind. Focusing on one aspect from one perspective is... easier. But it isn't sufficient.

That brings me to my next point. We tend to have many narrowly-focused theories for different issues rather than general rules or truths that apply to all mind-related things. This is what really differentiates psychology from most sciences.

If we can address these issues and unite sub-disciplines, theories and practice of psychology will advance and we'll be considered as a serious science. And then we'll get funds and s***.

I'll stop there. I think I've rambled enough for the moment. Any propositions on how we address these issues?
...

And pardon me for not clarifying. I know what "lickspittle" means... Well, I had to google it, but I know now, nonetheless. I don't understand the comment itself, or rather how it relates to the thread.