Forget the talk that people who take and research psychedelics are more tolerant, compassionate and peaceful. Social media is there to freak everyone out, including psychonauts, especially when it comes to gaining or preserving notoriety (and research funding, of course).
The latest Twitter riff pitted two celebrities of the psychedelic revival, Robin Carhart-Harris and David Nutt, against a lesser-known researcher, Manoj K. Doss, Frederick S. Barrett and Philip R. Corlett. Two pioneer centers in the field face off against them: Imperial College, United Kingdom, and Johns Hopkins University (JHU), in the United States.
It is true that RC-H already left Imperial at the University of California at San Francisco, where they created a professorship for him, and Corlett is from Yale University. But at the epicenter of the talk are researchers from those two psychedelic centers.
The subject gains space here not for gossip, or sensationalism. Research into mind-altering substances such as psilocybin, LSD and DMT already grapples with too many stigmas from the past to get caught up in ego competitions — that facet of the psyche that such drugs apparently dissolve, or at least dilute, making it if so promises of treatment for disorders such as depression and post-traumatic stress .
At the origin is an article by the group of Carhart-Harris and Nutt in the prestigious journal Nature Medicine, reported in April on this blog . Here’s the title and subtitle that tried to capture the essence of a complicated work: “How psilocybin unties the knot of depression for at least 3 weeks / Brain maps reveal more flexible mind with magic mushroom substance”.
As the first author of the study was the recent doctor Richard E. Daws, from Imperial. At the base of the research were brain images made with functional magnetic resonance, whose analysis, the authors said, showed greater communication between different brain networks, a flexibility that would be correlated with a decrease in symptoms of depression.
On the same day of publication on NatMed Doss tweeted the complaint that Daws et al. they had failed to mention your job on the same topic, “with only 3 existing studies with depression, fMRI [ressonância magnética funcional] and psilocybin”. RC-H immediately apologized for the “lapse” [oversight]and Doss put his finger on his own wound:
“I’d be lying if I didn’t say that this struck me as an intentional oversight to feign originality, but I’ll take your word for it. However, it’s quite strange that none of the 9 authors have kept up to date on the relevant literature.”
Carhart-Harris replied, “Please take my word for it. No fuss.”
The thing didn’t stop there. On April 28, Doss, Barrett, and Corlett posted a detailed review on the PsyArXiv open directory. of article on NatMed. AND Doss tweeted that his criticisms and those of others had been rejected by the magazine , “because the issues would obviously be very damaging to editors, reviewers, and the journal’s reputation.” The bile was still boiling.
I will not go into the merits of the technical and statistical criticisms of the article here, for lack of competence to present abstruse details to the reader in a correct and understandable way. Some seem relevant, others nitpicky, but it is fair to draw attention to the fray here because Doss accuses the article of receiving exaggerated attention without the results obtained supporting the conclusions, in his evaluation.
The expert reader who forms his opinion, but the topic of hype (exaggerated repercussion) in the psychedelic field is pertinent. As always, the blame is pushed to the press, which sometimes even distorts and inflates findings from scientific works, but often the researchers themselves and their institutions help with this.
Consider the case of Corlett’s objection to a claim by Nutt that there was now “proof” that psilocybin therapy works in the brain differently from selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants such as escitalopram. In the rejoinder, RC-H and his mentor at Imperial acknowledge the mistake, but point out that this statement is not in the scientific article and that it was made “informally” on social networks.
Lame excuse. First, because it is up to a researcher not to mislead journalists, even on social networks. Then, because it wasn’t just on social media that Nutt took the admittedly wrong step.
Right here on the blog I reproduced a phrase from him that said the same thing and was taken from an official communiqué from Imperial College distributed on the EurekAlert service for science reporters. :
“These findings are important because, for the first time, we’ve found that psilocybin works differently from conventional antidepressants — making the brain more flexible and fluid, less entrenched in the negative thought patterns associated with depression. This supports our initial predictions and confirms that psilocybin could be a real alternative approach to depression treatments.”
RC-H and Nutt’s rejoinder also goes a long way in listing their undeniable accomplishments in the field, the number of articles they have published, and the citations they have garnered. At the same time, they suggest that the published criticism came only because of Doss’s annoyance after not being cited. It seems contradictory to display one’s own quotes as a trump card after omitting other people’s work, in addition to sounding like an argument from authority.
Carhart-Harris and colleagues claim in their rejoinder that they are not responsible for the repercussions and possible distortions of the press when reporting their work, but Doss and co-authors are correct in saying that the fame gained influences decision makers about research funds. The Imperial staff closes the answer with a question that fits for everyone involved in the dispute:
“Doss et al. end their critique with a misplaced quote and a warning about being ‘tricked’. We invite you to reflect: who is being deceiving?”
——-
To learn more about the history and new developments of science in this area, including in Brazil, look for my book “Psiconautas – Travels with Brazilian Psychedelic Science”
Chad-98Weaver, a distinguished author at NewsBulletin247, excels in the craft of article writing. With a keen eye for detail and a penchant for storytelling, Chad delivers informative and engaging content that resonates with readers across various subjects. His contributions are a testament to his dedication and expertise in the field of journalism.
