On Minimizing Risk and Harm in the Use of Psychedelics.
Jules Evans, Marc Aixalà, Brian T. Anderson, William Brennan, Rebecka Bremler, Joost J. Breeksema, Lisa Burback, Abigail E. Calder, Robin L. Carhart‐Harris, Katherine Cheung, Neşe Devenot, Ingmar Gorman, Jakub Greń, Peter S. Hendricks, Brian Holoyda, Edward Jacobs, Joy Krecké, Daniel J. Kruger, David Luke, Tomislav Majić, Amy L. Mcguire, Nicky J. Mehtani, David S. Mathai, Kristin Nash, Tehseen Noorani, Roman Palitsky, Oliver C. Robinson, Otto Simonsson, Elin Stahre, Michiel van Elk, David B. Yaden
Psychiatr Res Clin Pract February 11, 2025 DOI: 10.1176/appi.prcp.20240128 via PubMed Central
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThirty psychedelic researchers identified critical gaps in knowledge about harms from psychedelic use, including how to define those harms, predict them, and treat them effectively. They recommend better online information, peer support groups, affordable therapy, and psychiatric consultation for people experiencing post-psychedelic difficulties. The researchers also call for improved funding for a psychedelic safety net, suggesting that psychedelic philanthropists, investors, and companies commit 1% of their investment to support safety measures such as research and support services. The article outlines practical steps to make the field of psychedelic medicine safer.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Survey Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 30 |
| Population | Psychedelic researchers |
| Topics | Psychedelic-assisted therapy |
| Keywords | Mental health safety Therapeutic protocols Harm reduction Clinical guidelines |
| Citations | 18 |
| Key finding | Critical research gaps include defining types of psychedelic harm, predicting those harms, and treating them effectively, along with a call for better support and funding for a psychedelic safety net. |
Abstract
Objective: This article outlines recommendations from 30 psychedelic researchers on how to create a better psychedelic safety net. Methods: A survey of 30 psychedelic researchers asked them to identify key critical research gaps around psychedelic harm and safety. Results: The critical research gaps identified by the authors included defining the main types of psychedelic harm, the predictors of those harms, and the most effective way to treat those harms. They also call for better support for those experiencing post-psychedelic difficulties, including better online information, peer support groups, affordable therapy, and psychiatric consultation and medication. Finally, the authors call for better funding to create a psychedelic safety net, and suggest psychedelic philanthropists, investors and companies could commit 1% of their investment in psychedelics into supporting safety measures such as research and support services. Conclusions: The authors identify several practical steps to create a better psychedelic safety net and call for more funding to psychedelic safety measures such as research and support services. Relevance to clinical practice: The authors outline important gaps in our knowledge around the safety and risk profile of psychedelic medicines and identify practical steps forward for researchers and clinical practitioners to make this promising field safer.