I pretty much agree with the article, and I would argue that the reintroduction of subjectivity goes much further than just the study of psychoactive substances

I pretty much agree with the article, and I would argue that the reintroduction of subjectivity goes much further than just the study of psychoactive substances for medical purpose. I tend to believe that the obsession with drugs in our cultures can be traced back to the reformation and the going away from religious experience as a form of wisdom and a valid way to access reality. When one reads the texts of christan, muslim or jewish mystics from the middle ages, one can only wonder at the depth of experiences and the care that is taken to interpret those experiences and build a model of the world that includes them. My feeling is that with the shift to stronger and stronger materialism, mystical experiences were more and more seen as suspicious and potentially a sign of mental disorder. As such, drugs are more acceptable, as one can always explain things away with "neural pathways" and "neurotrasmitters" and whatnot. The experience can be seen as interesting, but what is finally "real" are just electrical signals in a big meatball. While continuing research from this materialistic perspective is essential, there is a growing recognition that one should allow other ontologies and epistemiologies, that allow the use of direct experience to derive knowledge. This means accepting that some researchers and philosophers explore world models where consciousness is not just an phenomenon emerging from physical process in the brain, but potentially has an existence of its own, or even is primary. If you are interested in this topic I would recommend reading the Galileo Report, written by scientists and philosophers who work with consciousness, and in particular Near Death Experiences: https://galileocommission.org/report/ https://galileocommission.org/report/ Side note: I also think that this materialistic view favors the conception some have that drugs can be the only path to accessing some insights. In other cultures, such as the Ayahuasca consuming tribes of south america or the Amanita Muscaria consumers of Siberia, drugs are seen as powerful helpers for establishing contact with the spirits, but are by no means mandatory or necessary to this end. In Siberia for instance, Amanita is mostly consumed in "heterarchical" societies, where non chamans are "allowed" to contact the spirits. It is just something that can help, when one misses the necessary training or gift. In "hierarchical" societies, where the chaman is seen as being of a different species, use of drugs is actually seen as illegitimate, as the chaman should be able to communicate with the spirits thrpugh his/her skills alone. The difference with our culture is the ontology of the experience: one is not tripping for the trip, but to take contact with spirits and ask them something. Whether this happens with fireworks or more silently is less relevant. But we do not want to entertain the idea of spirits, so we are only left with the fireworks. But the real gift from those experiences is not the experience itself, but the opening of potential ontologies it allows, and the practice with choosing the right ontology in the moment to sustain and open the experience. Which is something that, again, also does wo der without drugs. TL;DR: what we need is to accept non-materialist ontologies as legitimate in a research setting