Analyzing the concept of independence in psychedelic research.

Summary

Incorporating independent actors into research processes may help manage bias, particularly in fields like psychedelic science. However, the concept of independence is often undefined and may introduce significant drawbacks, such as the risk of inadequate expertise. The discussion explores whether it is feasible to involve truly independent actors without compromising other scientific goals, and concludes by suggesting two models from law and science that could guide this incorporation.

Study at a glance

Abstract

A number of proposals across different fields have suggested incorporating "independent" actors into the research process as a way to manage potential bias. For example, in response to allegations of bias in psychedelic science, some have suggested the idea of independent auditors for adverse events, as well as the incorporation of independent researchers into the research teams of psychedelic trials. However, despite growing interest in these methods, the concept of independence itself remains frequently undefined. Moreover, although introducing independent actors may seem like a prima facie beneficial solution to help reduce bias and improve the scientific rigor of research, it may come with significant drawbacks as well. Here, we argue that the sense of independence on which these proposals for independent actors implicitly rely on is freedom from any influence that might alter the actors' choices in a way that reduces the trustworthiness or accuracy of research findings. Whether it is possible to identify and involve such actors without incurring trade-offs with other scientific desiderata (e.g. due to the risk of inadequate expertise) is then further explored. We conclude by providing two models in law and science that may be helpful to draw upon if seeking to incorporate independent actors.

Tags