Johns Hopkins seeking funding for psilocybin study

[Bancopuma]

Johns Hopkins University are seeking funding for a study on psilocybin and depression. I've donated, and think the team there are doing really great work and are worthy of support. There is an ongoing study on psilocybin and depression being conducted at Imperial College London, so it would be great to see two studies on this taking place at two such prestigious institutions...the initial data being reported from the Imperial College study sounds promising, and this could allow for a much needed breakthrough in how we treat depression, which medical science could do with some improvement on.

"Psilocybin has been safely consumed by humans for millennia. Despite this, the study of entheogens like psilocybin was blocked for several decades due to political rather than scientific factors. Now, we can finally explore the therapeutic and medical potential of these powerful compounds."

Crowdrise + GoFundMe

www.crowdrise.com

 

[benzyme]

is it merely another survey?

 

[Poekus]

Sorry can't fund this project. I just read that the capitalist Tim Ferriss donated 100.000, so it's funded with dirty money. :twisted:

 

[Jaffster]

There's another thread discussing this:

We need more people like this on our side - Open Discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

I didn't know that the study was also going on in London, do you have a link to the article?

 

[Bancopuma]

No Benz, no survey, Johns Hopkins are seeking a little public research funding.

Apologies I missed that thread.

I don't see what difference it makes who funds this, it's still a very good cause, and dirty money or not that is still a very generous and positive donation to make.

Jaffster the ongoing study at Imperial College is not directly linked to the planned one at Johns Hopkins, it is just looking at the same thing. More details on this research in this article, worth a read:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/lsd-ecstasy-therapy-psochology/423681/?utm_source=SFTwitter

 

[Poekus]

Apologies I missed that thread.

I don't see what difference it makes who funds this, it's still a very good cause, and dirty money or not that is still a very generous and positive donation to make.

Don't take it serious. I was referring to that thread as well which derailed into a pro/con capitalism discussion from the very first reply.

Of course it doesn't make any difference who funds this.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

The comment that "derailed" that thread was a direct reply to the title of the thread. You're certainly entitled to think it doesn't matter...we'll see what the future holds

Here's something else I want to throw out there, as a working scientist:

Even if this guy is a perfectly nice person, who's heart is in the right place and only wants to do good, do we really want to set up a system (or set a precedent) in which industry and CEOs are supporting (and necessarily, tacitly controlling) psychedelic research?

Soft money is a huge problem in research right now: science is either being done 1) by corporations directly, who then can manipulate the data and results to suite their agenda or 2) researchers outside of industry who, unless they're lucky enough to get a government grant (which are still influenced by corporations), turn to corporate sponsors. Having a company fund your research puts enormous pressure of a researcher to get the 'right' results, and gives the funders an unhealthy amount of control over 1) what gets studied, 2) what gets reported, and 3) how those results are interpreted and put to use.

My mentors are all in a mad scramble to make sure they get enough money from somewhere that they can get by, and it definitely effects the work that gets done, as well as the questions that get asked.

I personally think psychedelics are far too important to fall down that hole: down that path leads to billionaires getting rich by exploiting entheogenic drugs, they way they have for pretty much every other amazing thing the world produces.

You can say "but this is one good guy, calm down," but at some point, industry is going to realize that there's money to be made, just as soon as the culture shifts enough to make the research safe. I don't know with certainty, but I would bet all the money I have (not much) that there are R&D projects underway examining the potential for something like an MDMA analogue that can be patented and sold at a premium to desperate veterans and sexual assault survivors.

Blessings
~ND

 

[Bancopuma]

I do get the point about money colouring and influencing the quality of scientific research, but I think you need to to judge each case individually. Dr Kary Mullis stated that "Science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out," and not for what they actually produce, and I think he definitely makes a valid point.

However, looking at this case, I'm really not sure this applies. Firstly, this type of research, at this stage, is not receiving any government funding, so it is to a large extent dependent on public funding and donations from interested and supportive parties...it is the only way the science is going to move forward here, so I think it is positive to see people investing in it.

Secondly, I really don't see how the investment by this guy can possibly colour this research in any way. This is *very* specialised research indeed, being conducted by a tiny handful of institutions in the world, and only a handful of researchers worldwide have the necessary combination of education, experience, tenacity and desire to conduct this kind of research. Roland Griffiths and his team are the guys holding the reigns here and have the clearest idea on what to study and how to study it compared to any outside funder.

Thirdly, I really don't see how psilocybin could be exploited here to make big bucks. One of the main touted solutions to depression lauded by medical science are SSRI anti-depressants...these only treat the symptoms (and only for some people) and must be used daily and long term (and so generate a great deal of revenue for pharmaceutical companies). Psilocybin is distinct in that it only requires a single session (or a few) to produce potent and much deeper effects on depression than any SSRI (or at least initial findings are indicating). So I don't see the capacity here to make big bucks, sounds like a shoddy business plan to me in this respect...cannabis legalisation I think would make a much better avenue if people are more interested in generating capital.

This guy Tim Ferris I'm not so familiar with, but I think he it is positive he is speaking out on behalf of this research on psilocybin. So while I do appreciate Nathanial.Dread's concerns, in this case I don't believe them to apply.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

The initial critique I offered in the other thread dealt specifically with the recuperation of "psychedelic values" by "captains of industry". I won't rehash it here, but I do think it matters and I do think people are far too quick to slap a seal of approval on all things psychedelic without actually considering the longer term implications. The commodification of psychedelic compounds, cultures, and practices is well under way and, imo, presents a significant potential for undermining the components of psychedelic experiences that make them so valuable in the first place. That's my position in a nutshell and I'm well aware many don't agree. I suppose time will tell.

 

[anne halonium]

^ my overall thing is in agreement with snoz on this.
even if it doesnt sound like it.

im never against taking money off anyone though.
the ultimate victory is winning by tapping others supply lines.

 

[Eggplant]

I tend to trust the the Jonhs Hopkins team can stick to honest questions and answers regardless of their funding source, they have administered far more psilocybin than any other research group in the country in the recent revival of psychedelic therapy and have an excellent reputation in the research community.

Right now a major issue in tryptamine psychedelic research in the US is that there is pretty much no government funding for it - as Bancopuma noted. Research with Ketamine has been funded, but not psilocybin. What is needed is advocacy through our representatives to fund these psychedelic researchers so they don't have to rely on wealthy donors.

Not that government grants don't also come with strings attached, but at least they are different strings.