Mmmm, yes and As someone who conducts clinical research, there are definitely better ways to administrate these things. I know this because my institute is going through a paradigm shift in research initiation, funding and administration, the third one in a decade, because the programs hemorrhage money and investigator time left right and center. For a simple enough reason as 'people like money' stuff is going to shift around until we can find a more efficient way to do poke and prod people for medical science. In the case of Mr. Alexander, it sounds like the research department at his institution was particularly ineffectual and bureaucratically twisted AND his lack of research into 'How do I legally conduct clinical research in a setting with mentally compromised individuals?' came back to bite him and his headcase PI in the butt, a nasty combo.
I'll bet they really didn't want to be in a position to hang their liability and malpractice insurance on the line to prove that a screening tool that explicitly states it isn't for diagnosis is a screening tool that shouldn't be used for diagnosis. I think I know the screening tool he's talking about. It's this, or something like it. It's been cited 1200 times. N of 198, 5 outpatient clinics (where "are you unstable enough that we shouldn't give you a pen" never comes up). Both of my parents took it, and the one that's bipolar to fuck got "bipolar to fuck" and the one that isn't didn't. Thing of it is, bipolar disorder is pretty squidgy and even once you have a diagnosis you're messing with meds forever. So it's not like a misdiagnosis with a screening tool is a catastrophe or anything anyway.