4 ms·

A refugee funding America's psychedelic renaissance

87 points by pmcpinto 9y ago

arikr 9y ago
I've written similar things before, and it applies here too: To the extent that anyone on HN knows an active philanthropist looking for potentially highly impactful but severely underfunded causes - send them this article. I believe there's a case that funding MDMA research has very high dollar/impact returns - or at least that it's likely enough that it's worth a thorough exploration. It sounds like they still need to raise about $10-15 million, which is shockingly small compared to the ~$1.5bn/yr NIMH budget - and all of it will come from private philanthropists, as governments aren't yet willing to fund the work and for-profit companies don't see much profit yet due to the lack of patentability. If you're on HN and this is the first you're hearing about this research, some resources: - A short video excerpt from a documentary on MDMA therapy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iKx2MKS70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iKx2MKS70 - NY Times article - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html
- mistermann 9y ago
  I've always thought this experiment would be interesting: take two groups of partisan voters, a group from the left and right. Ask them a series of multiple choice questions as well as some long answer questions. Then, give them MDMA and repeat the previous testing.
  - arikr 9y ago
    Not MDMA, but correlational data exists for classic psychedelics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28443703 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28443703
    - sverige 9y ago
      Yes, correlation, not causation.
    - giggzy2 9y ago
      Interesting, confirmed my bias from read of abstract.
    - mowenz 9y ago
      The public value of the anti-authoritarian sentiment as an externality of psychedelic use could be quite high, depending on what it could prevent in our future.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      This seems to be based on prior usage, so causation vs correlation comes into question. And I'm not saying this at it is used on reddit, conservatives most definitely would be highly less likely to take psychedelics. Not to say that this study is uninteresting or useless though, I think there is a lot to be learned in this area, and I would argue that it would be very much in the best interests of Democrats (if that's truly what they are, I'm not so sure) to decriminalize these sorts of studies. Personally, I happen to believe that most Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same people wearing different costumes.
      - arikr 9y ago
        Yep > correlational data exists
        mistermann 9y ago
        Oops!!
  - sverige 9y ago
    Presumably those on the right would be much less likely to take MDMA. (I'm sure you are not suggesting doping them without consent, since that would be unethical.)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rhizome 9y ago
  all of it will come from private philanthropists, as governments aren't yet willing to fund the work It's against the law. Schedule I substances are prohibited from receiving federal funds for research.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    Would you please provide the exact law? MAPS[1] is a non-profit specifically dedicated to gathering and allocating funding for such studies, and considering how long they've been around doing what they're doing, I'd say they've figured out how to bypass the stringent requirements and remain on this side of the law. Full disclosure, I was involved with them briefly. The paperwork process needed to get the rights to run such trials lasts years, but they are eventually successful in making the studies a reality. [1] http://www.maps.org http://www.maps.org
    - rhizome 9y ago
      I based it on https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/26/can-eric-holder-change-the-federal-drug-classification-of-marijuana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/... (somewhere in the middle), but I'm still looking for a specific cite. In the meantime you'll see that MAPS only operates with private funding: http://www.maps.org/donate-redirect/funding-priorities http://www.maps.org/donate-redirect/funding-priorities A license to research and federal funding are separate issues, and my comment was only intended to address the latter.
- tpm 9y ago
  Also read this: The two most exciting developments in psychopharmacology in the 21st century so far have been ketamine for depression and MDMA for PTSD. (if I’m wrong, and history decides these two drugs weren’t the biggest developments, the most likely failure mode is that psilocybin turned out to be more important than MDMA) http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/05/is-pharma-research-worse-than-chance/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/05/is-pharma-research-wors...
  - contingencies 9y ago
    Don't forget MDMA for temporary relief from the symptoms of advanced Parkinsons. http://www.ecstasy.org/info/parkinsons.html http://www.ecstasy.org/info/parkinsons.html
  - api 9y ago
    I think this area is a genuine modern example of a suppressed technology.
- phreeza 9y ago
  > It sounds like they still need to raise about $10-15 million, which is shockingly small compared to the ~$1.5bn/yr NIMH budget 1% of the budget of a federal organisation is not that small...
  - arikr 9y ago
    It's needed over about 4 years, so ~0.25% of the yearly budget instead of 1%. Though yes, still not entirely insignificant.
ne9xt 9y ago
www.fundamental.nyc and www.maps.org are highly related
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
notadoc 9y ago
> a YouGov poll this month found that nearly two thirds of American adults would personally be willing to try MDMA, Ketamine, or Psilocybin if it was proven safe to treat a condition they have. This seems very dubious. I find it hard to believe 3/4 of the population has an interest in any intoxicating substance let alone that trio. Do 3/4 of American adults know what these substances are and how they work, let alone what they do? Now try to imagine 3/4 of the general population on a high dose of psilocybin experiencing ego loss and the related 6 hour mental colonic of tossing every possible skeleton out of their brains closet.
- mynameislegion1 9y ago
  > nearly two thirds That's quite a bit less than 3/4. I would be surprised if even half that many people knew about the kind of affect these kind of drugs can have on things like PTSD, OCD, or depression. Sometimes "tossing skeletons" is exactly what a brain needs to get back on a healthy track.
- King-Aaron 9y ago
  Replace "MDMA" with "alcohol" and it's not that hard to imagine... Most normal people, when presented with the question "would you try X drug", wouldn't have the experience to know about ego death and things, so it's probably not a concern for them.

87 points by pmcpinto 9y ago

I've written similar things before, and it applies here too: To the extent that anyone on HN knows an active philanthropist looking for potentially highly impactful but severely underfunded causes - send them this article. I believe there's a case that funding MDMA research has very high dollar/impact returns - or at least that it's likely enough that it's worth a thorough exploration. It sounds like they still need to raise about $10-15 million, which is shockingly small compared to the ~$1.5bn/yr NIMH budget - and all of it will come from private philanthropists, as governments aren't yet willing to fund the work and for-profit companies don't see much profit yet due to the lack of patentability. If you're on HN and this is the first you're hearing about this research, some resources: - A short video excerpt from a documentary on MDMA therapy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iKx2MKS70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iKx2MKS70 - NY Times article - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html

mistermann 9y ago
I've always thought this experiment would be interesting: take two groups of partisan voters, a group from the left and right. Ask them a series of multiple choice questions as well as some long answer questions. Then, give them MDMA and repeat the previous testing.
- arikr 9y ago
  Not MDMA, but correlational data exists for classic psychedelics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28443703 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28443703
  - sverige 9y ago
    Yes, correlation, not causation.
  - giggzy2 9y ago
    Interesting, confirmed my bias from read of abstract.
  - mowenz 9y ago
    The public value of the anti-authoritarian sentiment as an externality of psychedelic use could be quite high, depending on what it could prevent in our future.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    This seems to be based on prior usage, so causation vs correlation comes into question. And I'm not saying this at it is used on reddit, conservatives most definitely would be highly less likely to take psychedelics. Not to say that this study is uninteresting or useless though, I think there is a lot to be learned in this area, and I would argue that it would be very much in the best interests of Democrats (if that's truly what they are, I'm not so sure) to decriminalize these sorts of studies. Personally, I happen to believe that most Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same people wearing different costumes.
    - arikr 9y ago
      Yep > correlational data exists
      - mistermann 9y ago
        Oops!!
- sverige 9y ago
  Presumably those on the right would be much less likely to take MDMA. (I'm sure you are not suggesting doping them without consent, since that would be unethical.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rhizome 9y ago
all of it will come from private philanthropists, as governments aren't yet willing to fund the work It's against the law. Schedule I substances are prohibited from receiving federal funds for research.
- uoaei 9y ago
  Would you please provide the exact law? MAPS[1] is a non-profit specifically dedicated to gathering and allocating funding for such studies, and considering how long they've been around doing what they're doing, I'd say they've figured out how to bypass the stringent requirements and remain on this side of the law. Full disclosure, I was involved with them briefly. The paperwork process needed to get the rights to run such trials lasts years, but they are eventually successful in making the studies a reality. [1] http://www.maps.org http://www.maps.org
  - rhizome 9y ago
    I based it on https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/26/can-eric-holder-change-the-federal-drug-classification-of-marijuana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/... (somewhere in the middle), but I'm still looking for a specific cite. In the meantime you'll see that MAPS only operates with private funding: http://www.maps.org/donate-redirect/funding-priorities http://www.maps.org/donate-redirect/funding-priorities A license to research and federal funding are separate issues, and my comment was only intended to address the latter.
tpm 9y ago
Also read this: The two most exciting developments in psychopharmacology in the 21st century so far have been ketamine for depression and MDMA for PTSD. (if I’m wrong, and history decides these two drugs weren’t the biggest developments, the most likely failure mode is that psilocybin turned out to be more important than MDMA) http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/05/is-pharma-research-worse-than-chance/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/05/is-pharma-research-wors...
- contingencies 9y ago
  Don't forget MDMA for temporary relief from the symptoms of advanced Parkinsons. http://www.ecstasy.org/info/parkinsons.html http://www.ecstasy.org/info/parkinsons.html
- api 9y ago
  I think this area is a genuine modern example of a suppressed technology.
phreeza 9y ago
> It sounds like they still need to raise about $10-15 million, which is shockingly small compared to the ~$1.5bn/yr NIMH budget 1% of the budget of a federal organisation is not that small...
- arikr 9y ago
  It's needed over about 4 years, so ~0.25% of the yearly budget instead of 1%. Though yes, still not entirely insignificant.

ne9xt 9y ago

www.fundamental.nyc and www.maps.org are highly related

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

notadoc 9y ago

> a YouGov poll this month found that nearly two thirds of American adults would personally be willing to try MDMA, Ketamine, or Psilocybin if it was proven safe to treat a condition they have. This seems very dubious. I find it hard to believe 3/4 of the population has an interest in any intoxicating substance let alone that trio. Do 3/4 of American adults know what these substances are and how they work, let alone what they do? Now try to imagine 3/4 of the general population on a high dose of psilocybin experiencing ego loss and the related 6 hour mental colonic of tossing every possible skeleton out of their brains closet.

mynameislegion1 9y ago
> nearly two thirds That's quite a bit less than 3/4. I would be surprised if even half that many people knew about the kind of affect these kind of drugs can have on things like PTSD, OCD, or depression. Sometimes "tossing skeletons" is exactly what a brain needs to get back on a healthy track.
King-Aaron 9y ago
Replace "MDMA" with "alcohol" and it's not that hard to imagine... Most normal people, when presented with the question "would you try X drug", wouldn't have the experience to know about ego death and things, so it's probably not a concern for them.