wirikuta hikuri hallucinogen mexican peyote flower.

Should Sacred Plant Medicines Have Standing? The Original Instructions and Western Jurisprudence

By Keith Williams and Ariel Clark

The resurgence of interest in psychedelics, or sacred plant and fungal medicines and their psychoactive constituents, has been described as a kind of “renaissance” much like the European renaissance that blossomed between the 14th – 17th centuries. The comparison is apt—for, in addition to a flowering of learning and human achievement, the psychedelic renaissance, like its namesake, is only possible because of the underlying extractivist colonial logic informing activity in this domain. We are both writing as people with ancestry from Indigenous communities, and we have a profound interest in respecting, honoring, and becoming-with our more-than-human kin. A business-as-usual approach to the so-called psychedelic renaissance will only reinforce the harmful extractivism inherent in contemporary global capitalist culture and will foreclose the kind of collective healing possible with reciprocity as an orienting principle. This post offers a brief sketch of the potential for Rights of Nature legislation to safeguard these sacred medicines by recognizing them as rights holders unto themselves and by embedding into law a relational positionality of respect and responsibility with our plant and fungal kin.

Read More

Composite collage image of four peoples' hands holding lightbulb puzzle pieces.

Common Problems in Psychedelic Science, and How to Fix Them

By Eiko I. Fried and Michiel van Elk

Much optimism has been expressed about the potential of psychedelics to treat mental health problems such as suicidal ideation, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. This optimism goes hand in hand with a notable increase in research publications, investments from pharmaceutical companies, patent filings, media exposure, as well as shifts in political and legislative landscapes. In the U.S., hundreds of ketamine clinics have emerged in the last years, and Australia just recently acknowledged psychedelics as medicines.

In our new paper in print in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology, titled “History repeating: Guidelines to address common problems in psychedelic science,” we critically discuss whether this optimism is warranted, given current empirical work. One of us (Dr. Eiko Fried) is an Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology who studies and teaches conducting and evaluating clinical trials for mental health problems such as depression, with a focus on the question what valid inferences can be drawn from empirical data. The other (Dr. Michiel van Elk) is an Associate Professor in Cognitive Psychology, with a long-standing interest in the topic of altered states of consciousness (including, but not limited to, states induced through psychedelics), who, together with the PRSM lab, uses a multi-method research approach, open science practices and replication studies to study these experiences in the lab and in naturalistic settings.

Read More

Colorful vitamins, pills and tablets on green background.

History Rhymes with the Psychedelic Boom

By David Herzberg

As a historian of psychoactive pharmaceuticals in the 20th century U.S., I see history rhyming in potentially dangerous ways in the current psychedelic boom. After decades of being associated with insanity, violence, and social disorder, psychedelics are now being embraced as potential wonder drugs. What appears to be a radical, 180-degree shift in reputation, however, masks an underlying similarity: both of these mirror-image stories belong to the mythologies of the consumer culture, which attribute broad transformational power to individual acts of consumption. Seeing drugs through this mythological lens prevents us from accessing their potential benefits, while exposing us to the real possibility that they could make things worse.

Read More

iridescent holographic waves.

The Psychedelics Industry: Psychedelic Evangelism in Second Wave Research

By Patric Plesa

As interest in psychedelics research and popular psychedelics culture resurges, it is becoming progressively more difficult to discern facts from fantasy. As an academic with expertise in psychology, I too share in the growing enthusiasm for psychedelics research, especially toward therapeutic ends. But I believe a critical perspective, characterized by open science practices and critical theoretical lenses, is indispensable if this field is to avoid the errors of the past and the neoliberal pitfalls of the present.

Read More

Doctor asking patient to fill out survey before medical treatment.

Psychedelics in the Clinical Setting: The Potential for Harm and the Promise of Healing

By Caroline Hayes

The psychedelic renaissance is well underway, with hundreds of clinical trials currently looking into a plethora of different mental health conditions. I was a sub-investigator on a clinical trial researching a psychedelic study drug to treat depression, but I have since stepped back from psychedelic clinical trials due to personal ethical concerns about the way the field is evolving. Despite the seemingly boundless optimism for their potential as pharmacological treatments, there are a number of unique issues that psychedelics present in a clinical setting that are yet to be adequately addressed. I believe it is essential that these issues are rectified to minimize the potential harm to those desperately seeking relief from their mood symptoms.

Read More

colorful soap bubble bursting.

Introductory Editorial — Critical Psychedelic Studies: Correcting the Hype

By Neşe Devenot

Since the 2022 publication of “Preparing for the Bursting of the Psychedelic Hype Bubble,” a JAMA Psychiatry Viewpoint by David Yaden and colleagues, a wave of scholarship and commentaries has emphasized the ethical importance of nuanced science communication about the still-nascent field of psychedelic medicine.

Read More

Newspapers and Laptop.

AI, Copyright, and Open Science: Health Implications of the New York Times/OpenAI Lawsuit

By Adithi Iyer

The legal world is atwitter with the developing artificial intelligence (“AI”) copyright cage match between The New York Times and OpenAI. The Times filed its complaint in Manhattan Federal District Court on December 27 accusing OpenAI of unlawfully using its (copyrighted and paywalled) articles to train ChatGPT. OpenAI, in turn, published a sharply-worded response on January 8, claiming that its incorporation of the material for training purposes squarely constitutes fair use. This follows ongoing suits by authors against OpenAI on similar grounds, but the titanic scale of the Times-OpenAI dispute and its application of these issues to media in federal litigation makes it one to watch. While much of the buzz around the case has centered on its intellectual property and First Amendment implications, there may be implications for the health and biotech industries. Here’s a rundown of the major legal questions at play and the health-related stakes for a future decision.

Read More

. Group of pregnant women and women with children. Vector illustration

#MaternalHealthAwarenessDay: Three Policies to Push

By Joelle Boxer

Today is Maternal Health Awareness Day, focused on the theme “Access in Crisis.”

“Crisis” is the right word, yet still an understatement. In the U.S., for every 100,000 live births in 2021, nearly 33 pregnant people lost their lives. In Norway, that number was 2. Black and Native American women in the U.S. are particularly at risk, with death rates 2-3 times higher than those of white women, due to structural racism.

What can the law do to prevent these deaths? Medicaid pays for more than 40% of births in the U.S., covering 64% of Black mothers and 66% of Native American mothers. Examining efforts at the federal and state level, I highlight three options, leveraging Medicaid as a policy lever.

Read More

scales on blue background.

Conclusion to the Symposium: From Principles to Practice: Human Rights and Public Health Emergencies

By Timothy Fish Hodgson, Roojin Habibi, and Alicia Ely Yamin

In developing the digital symposium, From Principles to Practice: Human Rights and Public Health Emergencies (which ran from October – December 2023), as editors we endeavored to get scholars, human rights advocates, judges, and policy makers to engage critically with the expert Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Public Health Emergencies (the PHE Principles), published by the International Commission of Jurists and the Global Health Law Consortium in May 2023. In doing so, we encouraged contributors to comment on the Principles’ potential usefulness as guidance in addressing real emergency situations, as well as any possible gaps and weaknesses.

While summarizing the entire content of the 13 blogs comprising this symposium in any depth is not possible here, this concluding post will attempt to synthesize some of the major inputs from the contributions. We also provide some of our own observations, as participants in the drafting of the Principles, with the aim of pushing the discussion prompted by the posts forward.

Read More