[tlb]

The funding discussed here is for scientific studies. But it's not clear what important question is still open and needs further study. From what I've read [1, 2, 3, 4], the psychological benefits are well-established and powerful if used in the right mindset, and the health risks are also well-established and rare or minor if used carefully.

So science seems to have answered the questions it can answer. The obstacle to wider use is policy and regulation.

Is funding scientific studies where the answers are already known an effective way to change government and social policy? It could be, but I hope everyone involved understands whether they're doing Science or Advocacy.

[1] Michael Pollan, _How to Change your Mind_

[2] James Fadiman, _The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide_

[3] Ayelet Waldman, _A Very Good Day_

[4] Dozens of popular articles

[max76]

> the psychological benefits are well-established and powerful if used in the right mindset, and the health risks are also well-established and rare or minor if used carefully.

> I hope everyone involved understands whether they're doing Science or Advocacy.

The data (science) gives creditably to the activist and lobbyist hoping to change policy (advocacy). I think everyone is clear on what side they are on.

There is plenty of space for science to expand our understanding. What is the probability of a bad outcome of psychedelics? How does dose effect the probability of a bad outcome? Is Mushrooms, LSD, or MDMA the most effective treatment for PTSD? For end of life anxiety? For major depression? What conditions are these substances helpful for (I don't think we have a complete list)? When should a medical provider recommend psychedelics? Can psychedelics be used on everyone, or just those with certain conditions? How does repeated long term exposure adjust the risk profile? What is the optimal microdosing schedule? What are the objective benefits of microdosing? What is optimal microdosing dose? Who should be microdosing?

There are a lot of unanswered questions to answer, and probably even more questions we don't have enough data to know to ask. The studies that we have are with low sample sizes, so larger studies would be scientifically significant. What we have with psychedelics are a few recent studies done with modern scientific rigor that all conclude there is a lot of potential in this space. We have more historical studies done, but without modern scientific rigor and need to be recreated before being reliable data.

Lets not forget that while these human trials are taking place real people are legally being given life changing help. That's enough to make the entire thing worth it.

[anythingnonidin]

Yes, the obstacle to wider use is policy and regulation.

For those interested, some thoughts:

There are two types of users from a policy perspective. People with specific diagnoses/diseases, and "healthy" people.

For people with specific diagnoses and diseases, the most important work is FDA approval of MDMA and psilocybin. MAPS, COMPASS Pathways, and Usona are working on this and they require a bunch of money to get through to a successful FDA approval. Funding this research is a very high leverage way to enable policy change, because the FDA has a relatively clear process to approving a drug for medical use for patients with relevant medical diagnoses.

For "healthy people," there needs to be another route. Some people are working on ballot initiatives and legislation that will impact this (see Oregon, Denver, Oakland, Iowa) and that may be a high leverage route. But the path here is less clear. As you note in some cases, some types of research can be helpful for boosting political change, whereas others aren't going to be an efficient use of capital for that goal.

[blendo]

Here's one scientific question I'd like to see answered: If a patient is currently taking anti-depressants (or other meds) for the treatment of PTSD, depression, or addiction, and if a physician thinks a psychedelic treatment might help, how should they understand the interaction between the psych meds and the hallucinogen?

Since we're dealing with ill people, a larger amount of care is warranted.

[filoeleven]

It depends on the meds. MAOIs have a strengthening effect with every psychedelic, as far as I’ve read.

Anyone going for an ayahuasca treatment needs to know that an MAOI is part of that brew, so they’d have to stop their medication some weeks beforehand or risk potential death if already taking one.

The places running medical studies like Johns Hopkins probably have good info on interactions, unless they’re turning away study participants who take medication. Since they’re specifically looking at treating depression, anxiety, addiction, I suspect they’re accepting people who are already on a variety of medications.

[Nasrudith]

There is a large pool to draw upon for reference informally - experiences of users who did so without skipping doses.

[Alex3917]

> Is funding scientific studies where the answers are already known an effective way to change government and social policy?

A lot of the science had to be re-done because there were methodological issues in the original research, and no one was really sure whether or not the data was faked. I think it was Rick Doblin who discovered that one of the folks in either Leary's or Pahnke's studies actually ran away during the study, but because the researcher never reported this as a possible adverse event it opened up other questions about the validity of the data. It turned out the original data was basically accurate, but it wasn't necessarily a given.