They contracted a bunch of academic "psychedelic experts", and later on didn't tell them about changes to their business organization. Without more information

They contracted a bunch of academic "psychedelic experts", and later on didn't tell them about changes to their business organization. Without more information, I don't know if that's bad or not. Should they have? Were they required to? From the article it sounds like in at least one case the researcher already hadn't been working together for several months when the change happened. They definitely burned some bridges, but worse things happen all the time. The text you quoted even calls it "conventional pharmaceutical-industry tactics". Sounds like sour grapes to me.