How corporate involvement in psychedelic research could threaten public safety

In the mid-Twentieth century, psychedelics were deemed illegal substances with little medical purpose, a high potential for abuse and an absence of safety. However, emerging evidence suggests the alternative; a possible role for these “mind-altering” substances within the treatment of conditions like depression, PTSD and substance use disorders.

With an increasing cultural highlight, there was substantial economic growth of the psychedelic drugs market. It is projected to surpass $12 billion globally by 2030. Unsurprisingly, this growth has attracted the interest of corporations and start-ups desperate to capitalize on this burgeoning industry.

Legislative restrictions have made it difficult to acquire government funding for psychedelic researchbut now corporations are stepping as much as fund clinical trials. Although this support may help speed up researchers’ understanding of psychedelics, it also sparks concern as a conflict of interest.

How conflicts of interest impact psychedelic research

Corporations work to pursue profit for shareholders, a motivational bias that differs from the goal of science which is to report findings as accurately as possible. At the identical time, industry advantages the sector by introducing recent potential therapies. Nonetheless, there are many ways wherein conflicts of interest may challenge scientific integrity in psychedelic trials:

• Research topic selection: Corporations are likely to prioritize research fields related to products that may be best commercialized.

• Investigator psychology: Researchers may receive “gifts” from corporationsintroducing a social and skilled pressure to evolve with their expectations and desires.

• Substance selection: Corporate interests are more likely to favour substances that may be patented.

• Population selection: Corporate interests may advocate for strict screening when recruiting volunteers to extend the prospect of positive outcomes. This may end in the study cohort being easier to treat, which limits the generalizability of the outcomes to real-world populations.

• Study design: Corporate interests may favour study designs which might be more more likely to indicate statistically significant effectiveness, and fewer more likely to discover antagonistic events.

• Cost minimization: Corporate interests may favour less frequent sessions or follow-ups, reduced monitoring and fewer open interviews with participants in an effort to scale back costs. These changes make it tougher to discover antagonistic events and might allow them to go unreported.

• Reporting: Publication bias may occur wherein scientific journals usually tend to publish positive findings, and negative findings remain unpublished.

• Media engagement: Corporate interests may favour sensationalist media narratives that are usually not balanced. An emphasis on positive results can skew the public perception of psychedelics.

• Participant psychology: Selective reporting within the media may contribute to “excessive enthusiasm” and expectancy bias in participants and researchers. This happens when individuals with positive views about psychedelics usually tend to volunteer for studies and expect positive outcomes.

Consequences for public health

While generally considered secure in medically supervised situations, psychedelics carry unique safety concerns, including psychological vulnerability, perceptual impairment and changes in mood. In reality, the complete range of mechanisms, safety risks and long-term effects of psychedelics are usually not known.

The influence of conflicts of interest on psychedelic studies can contribute to a very optimistic opinion by researchers, the general public and policymakers. This may pose safety risks to the general public if legislative changes that increase access are made prematurely, as witnessed with tobacco and opioid industries previously.

What we are able to do about it

There are a couple of ways to deal with these challenges:

• Promote alternate funding sources: Government funding opportunities will allow psychedelic clinical trials to occur with or without partial corporate involvement.

• Transparent reporting of corporate involvement: Disclosure of conflicts of interest is essential in fuelling trust and allowing critical interpretation of findings.

• Responsible reporting within the media: Sensationalist media coverage promotes inaccurate narratives, equivalent to the flexibility of psychedelics to “cure” mental illness with one dose. Standards of reporting may be developed to be certain that media reports are as accurate as possible.

• Research regulations and standards: Clinical trial protocols needs to be registered before the research acquires any corporate funding, with safety data as a most important result. The inclusion of independent arbiters could help determine if any antagonistic events are related to the treatment.

• Public education: Media literacy and public education schemes, and ethical science communication, could help the general public higher understand psychedelic research results in addition to promote informed policy changes and secure use.

• Funding real-world evidence: Research funding agencies should support real-world cohort studies measuring long-term effects and health outcomes of psychedelic use.

Considering reduce the impact of conflicts of interest on psychedelic studies could help avoid public health risks and further setbacks on research efforts for these potentially life-saving therapies.

While market-driven solutions have contributed to the event of life-changing therapies, more awareness is required for a way corporate interests may threaten research integrity and pose public safety risks within the pursuit of profit.