Should we be leery of being Leary? Concerns about psychedelic use by psychedelic researchers.

Abstract

Psychedelic research is proceeding rapidly, despite ongoing legal and regulatory barriers and lingering questions about study design, such as the difficulty of ensuring adequate blinding, the relative overrepresentation in studies of participants who have previously used psychedelics, and the importance of personal experience with psychedelics for those who provide psychedelic-assisted therapy. Here we wish to explore a distinct concern: whether personal use of psychedelics by researchers could threaten the objectivity and ethical conduct of psychedelic research itself. In 2020, Anderson et al. suggested that psychedelic use could lead even "conservative individuals to become wildly enthusiastic about the potentials of psychedelics to heal and transform". Recent popular press criticisms of psychedelic science, in particular critiques of the MAPS Phase II and Phase III MDMA-Assisted Therapy trials for PTSD, have also raised questions about whether personal use of psychedelic drugs by psychedelic therapists could compromise scientific objectivity, lead to the exploitation of research subjects, or promote biased reporting of results. Here, we elaborate on and attempt to delimit these concerns, with the goal of informing policy related to psychedelic research and the eventual clinical use of psychedelics. In particular, we explore whether the possibility that psychedelic use can directly and positively affect investigators' enthusiasm about psychedelics themselves raises concerns about bias and scientific integrity. We then discuss several practical strategies to reduce perceived conflict of interest.