Indeed, having used both psilocybin and LSD myself, I have experienced these states. Not only did I have a disregard for my own death, I spent half an hour during one trip considering whether I ought to chew off and eat my own fingers. Happily, I chose not to, and overall I recall the trips of my youth fondly. But the visions they gave me were not real or true; they were the result of overstimulation of specific brain centers by a chemical. Allowing credulous patients to alter their entire life outlook and philosophy based on such experiences is, I think, fundamentally unethical, whatever the positive side effects might be.

Imagine if a study proposed to hypnotize patients, to tell them to believe all sorts of nonsense, and then to wake them up and leave them with those beliefs for the rest of their lives because it was expected that the nonsense beliefs would produce positive clinical outcomes. Would such a proposal pass an ethical review panel? I would certainly hope not. That situation is precisely parallel to the hallucinogen studies, except that instead of the doctor whispering falsehoods into the patient’s ear, it is the drug given by the doctor.
Ben Haller
Department of Biology
McGill University

GRIFFITHS AND GROB REPLY: We were glad to read that Haller did not eat his fingers. This is not surprising, however, as hallucinogen-involved trauma is very rare under the haphazard conditions of illicit use—which we nonetheless caution against—and it is virtually unheard of within supervised research settings. Haller dismisses the philosophical statements by psilocybin study volunteers as “false.” We regard them as unfalsifiable, and so, as scientists, we take no position for or against them. We do note, without judgment, that they tend to align with the mystical teachings of the world’s religions. The analogy with hypnosis is spurious, because in our psilocybin sessions we do not introduce explicit content to the patient.

During informed consent, candidate volunteers learn up front of psilocybin’s potential effects, including lasting changes in philosophy and outlook. Our ethics committees have approved our studies, which we stand behind. The risk-to-benefit assessment for this research is favorable. Preliminary studies in patients and healthy volunteers suggest substantial and sustained positive effects.

THE ROAD MORE TRAVELED
In “Know-It-All Toll Roads” [“World Changing Ideas”], Tom Vanderbilt claims pricing the roads is a better alternative to sitting in traffic. We thoroughly disagree. Free-market principles work fine for commodities that can be produced by several competitors, such as TVs. For public goods such as roads, however, there is usually only one best route and all others are much less desirable. “Ration by queue” gives all people equal access to the best option. The fact that so many people are willing to sit in traffic is proof those routes are more desirable for everyone. With “ration by price,” only the rich could afford the desirable routes. It sounds like an absolutely terrible idea and would set a dangerous precedent.
Steven and Luci Jones
Rocklin, Calif.

5 Comments

1. 1. GreenD 10:34 AM 4/8/11

   Although I did not read the article about psychodelics as medicine, I am very pleased to hear one was published in such an established source as S.A.
   
   I am an avid explorer of such sciences, and strongly believe they need to be approached in an ethically sound, safe, and scientific manner. I've had my experiences, and to say that psilocybin and LSD simply place "false" beliefs is a bit premature.
   
   The thought that you had to eat your own fingers, Mr.Haller, is somewhat common in those unexperienced and uneducated on the subject. As you stated, this WAS caused by over stimulation in a specific brain area - an area probably not very stimulated by you before, hence the 'psychotic' thoughts.
   
   To end this briefly, and without employing many references and controversial beliefs, I will say that the use of psychodelics as medicine must be approached, and to prevent the fear and often limited-psychosis that can potentially accompany their use - education is essential. Our youth are showered with tall tales and informal beliefs about psychodelics and this most certainly affects their use, but also their experience. Having a child overhear "LSD rots your brain" and 3 years later finds himself wondering if he should eat his own fingers will not bode well for the young & curious.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Dr.d 06:21 PM 4/8/11

   When I read this comment: "I have seen and read the science, and I no longer drink and cook with my city’s fluoridated water supply." I immediately thought not of protective fluoride but natural contaminants in city waters (cadmium?). Moving from N.Y.'s and P.R.'s crystalline waters to Florida's brackish soupy 'water' would force anyone to convert to 'holy' beer or wine drinking if you are of German or Spanish descent respectively... at least during lent... :-)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. joseph2237 10:52 AM 4/10/11

   Find it slightly disappointing that after 50 years the "overwhelmingly successful Standard Model of particle physics" is still the standard model. Then again Einstein did say Physist do suffer from lack ofr imagination except when it comes to multi-verses. Verifiable proof through experiments is ok except the experiment are conducted with "known" paraments and the outcome is anticapated any unexpected result is regarded as invalid. Why are physist proud that basic fundimental knowledge has not been advanced in 50 years. We are still trying to finish up relativity after a hundred years. I'm for a little less critism and a litte more presistance and encouragement.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Didonai 05:10 PM 4/12/11

   Actually, JD's are not the only kind of doctor really good at screwing people with the facts. Truth is no kind of ignorance is so pervasive as professional opinion that just refuses to consider the shape of knowledge is really nothing quite like the expert would prefer.
   
   Now, go screw yourself with the facts and then wonder at the failure of scientific discovery...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. drelliot 10:19 AM 5/9/11

   Garrett Lisi is now scoffing at the wisdom of the likes of Einstein, Bohr, Newton, and Feynman in the comments here:
   
   scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=garrett-lisi-responds-to-criticisms-2011-05-04&posted=1#comments
   
   And he is stating that anonymously editing wikipages is superior to peer-reviewed science:
   
   Garret writes, "Old-school scientists have dismissed E8 Theory for not being peer reviewed and published. Personally, I am not climbing an academic ladder and I enjoy an open exchange of ideas, so I did not feel the need to submit my original 2007 paper to a traditional journal, although I was invited to do so."
   
   Which journal invited you to submit the 2007 paper? Please do share!
   
   Also, if peer-reviewed journals are only for "old shcool" scientists, should "new school" scientists abandon the peer-review process and instead edit their wikipedia pages?
   
   The following is from:
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything
   
   "The Greater Goal of The Smolin-Lisi Enterprise?
   
   Reading through the above discussion, I am quite amazed that scientryst (lisi?) is actively trying to define peer-reviewed and published scientific articles as untrustworthy and unreliable, while trying to define popular articles and blogs and well-funded hype as trusted and reliable. Is this really happening? Really? Please discuss."
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this