3 ms·

I thought there was already data on this, this paper doesn't seem to be adding anything we didn't know before to the science. Can someone explain if that's actu

I thought there was already data on this, this paper doesn't seem to be adding anything we didn't know before to the science. Can someone explain if that's actually the case or not?

elliotec 3y ago
What's wrong with more data?
orhmeh09 3y ago
This adds to the body of evidence around the subject, especially if it reproduces, fails to reproduce, or builds on previous findings -- an important part of science.
cogitoergofutuo 3y ago
Sometimes scientists cover the same stuff as other scientists in the interest of checking reproducibility or finding new data. Sometimes new stuff is discovered, sometimes not.
photochemsyn 3y ago
It's a so-called meta-analysis, looking at a bunch of other studies and trying to create a baseline of known knowledge which will inform future individual focused studies. > "The established dose-response relationships may be used as general references for future experimental and clinical research on LSD to compare observed with expected subjective effects and to elucidate phenomenological differences between psychedelics." Having this kind of body of curated knowledge means, for example, that a funding agency might be more willing to sponsor further specific research, i.e. you could say 'here's our plan for giving subjects doses of x amounts to study the threshold where visual perception becomes strongly altered, based on this prior work' and so on.
Hanschri 3y ago
As photochemsyn previously mentioned, a meta-analysis looks at previous research in order to see if there are any interesting conclusions to draw the combined data. As an example, the analysis found that no appropriate studies have been done on doses between 20 - 50 μg, or over 200 μg. Their notes on how set and setting, and whether or not the participants had ever used psychedelics before affects the experience can also be interesting for a scientist working with LSD. The study also observes that "No direct experimental comparison of the bioequivalence of the two formulations has been made to date", meaning that we simply do not know if LSD base is stronger or weaker than LSD tartrate, or how the ingestion method affects the experience. This information in tandem with the graphs can be used as inspiration for what kind of experiment to do next in order to better understand how LSD interacts with the brain. A meta-analysis is a good tool for taking a step back and trying to see if there are any blind spots in the research field.

I thought there was already data on this, this paper doesn't seem to be adding anything we didn't know before to the science. Can someone explain if that's actually the case or not?

elliotec 3y ago

What's wrong with more data?

orhmeh09 3y ago

This adds to the body of evidence around the subject, especially if it reproduces, fails to reproduce, or builds on previous findings -- an important part of science.

cogitoergofutuo 3y ago

Sometimes scientists cover the same stuff as other scientists in the interest of checking reproducibility or finding new data. Sometimes new stuff is discovered, sometimes not.

photochemsyn 3y ago

It's a so-called meta-analysis, looking at a bunch of other studies and trying to create a baseline of known knowledge which will inform future individual focused studies. > "The established dose-response relationships may be used as general references for future experimental and clinical research on LSD to compare observed with expected subjective effects and to elucidate phenomenological differences between psychedelics." Having this kind of body of curated knowledge means, for example, that a funding agency might be more willing to sponsor further specific research, i.e. you could say 'here's our plan for giving subjects doses of x amounts to study the threshold where visual perception becomes strongly altered, based on this prior work' and so on.

Hanschri 3y ago

As photochemsyn previously mentioned, a meta-analysis looks at previous research in order to see if there are any interesting conclusions to draw the combined data. As an example, the analysis found that no appropriate studies have been done on doses between 20 - 50 μg, or over 200 μg. Their notes on how set and setting, and whether or not the participants had ever used psychedelics before affects the experience can also be interesting for a scientist working with LSD. The study also observes that "No direct experimental comparison of the bioequivalence of the two formulations has been made to date", meaning that we simply do not know if LSD base is stronger or weaker than LSD tartrate, or how the ingestion method affects the experience. This information in tandem with the graphs can be used as inspiration for what kind of experiment to do next in order to better understand how LSD interacts with the brain. A meta-analysis is a good tool for taking a step back and trying to see if there are any blind spots in the research field.