There have been a number of criticisms of Engel's biopsychosocial model. Benning summarized the arguments against the model including that it • lacked philosophical coherence, • was insensitive to patients' subjective experience, • was unfaithful to the
general systems theory that Engel claimed it be rooted in, • engendered an undisciplined
eclecticism that provided no safeguards against either the dominance or the under-representation of any one of the three domains of bio, psycho, or social. Psychiatrist Hamid Tavakoli argued that Engel's biopsychosocial model should be avoided because it • unintentionally promoted an artificial distinction between biology and psychology, and • caused confusion in psychiatric assessments and training programs, • ultimately it has not helped the cause of trying to de-stigmatize mental health. The perspectives model does not make that arbitrary distinction. A number of these criticisms have been addressed. For example, the biopsychosocial pathways model describes how it is possible to conceptually separate, define, and measure biological, psychological, and social factors, and thereby seek detailed interrelationships among these factors. In a series of articles, Hunt, St-John Smith and Abed further criticised the biopsychosocial model for its lack of interaction with evolutionary theory, proposing that integrating evolutionary theory could address many of its criticisms. This 'evobiopsychosocial' approach is suggested to offer clarity on the relationship between the biological, psychological and social levels, and grounds the model more explicitly in fundamental biological theory, with implications for research, treatment, and conciliation. As of 2017 whilst Engel's call to arms for a biopsychosocial model had been taken up in several healthcare fields and developed in related models, it had not been adopted in acute medical and surgical domains. ==History==