To me, recent news echoes like a throwback. I’m thinking of early psychedelics studies with patients in the 1950s conducted by Aldous Huxley’s friend the psychiatrist Dr. Humphry Osmond, known for coining the word psychedelic. Osmond is shown here on a casual day in the country (photo courtesy of the Humphry Osmond family).

Maybe some of us are experiencing psychedelic déjà vu. Is this like 1966 (when LSD became illegal, starting in California) or the mid ‘80s when MDMA joined the list of Schedule I drugs?

Not long ago, a constant online chorus heralded the momentum of psychedelic research rolling towards pending Federal Drug Administration approval of MDMA. Also known by its street name Ecstasy or molly, this substance was central to studies conducted this past decade by Lycos Therapeutics. The goal was to demonstrate that MDMA is beneficial for use in a clinical setting for treatment of Post-traumatic stress disorder.

Had it been approved for medical use and proven safe it would also overturn its current standing as a Schedule I drug defined (in part) as “with no currently acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse,” as stated by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

But this month the FDA rejected the Lycos Therapeutics application on the grounds that, among other issues, the data did not lead to the conclusion that the drug is safe and effective. At a minimum, further studies would be needed. Even the design of the study was questioned, and one reason was because some researcher/therapists conducting sessions with subjects had previously or were currently taking MDMA (not necessarily in that same session’s timeframe, but still…).

And that brings me back to Dr. Humphry Osmond, one of the pioneers of psychedelic research before it became illegal in the 1970s. As I write in my book Aldous Huxley’s Hands: His Quest for Perception and the Origin and Return of Psychedelic Science, Dr. Osmond’searly work in the ‘50s involved mescalin, which he arranged to give to Huxley (at his request), and that experience inspired Huxley to write The Doors of Perception.

At the same time, Osmond and his psychiatric colleague Dr. John Smythies realized that mescalin induced an experience like schizophrenia, and that made it useful for studying schizophrenic patients. Dr. Osmond believed the therapist should try the drug in order to better understand the patient.

Now, this post is partly in reaction to today’s (August 24) New York Times Guest Opinion by science writer Caty Enders: “How Psychedelic Research Got High on Its Own Supply.” It also ran in the Sunday NYT. The enthusiasm for benefits of psychedelic use in conjunction with therapy, as Enders notes, has led to the use of MDMA by many researchers involved in this study (and purportedly in ongoing studies of other psychedelics). Such involvement arguably undercuts the objectivity of the researcher, hence the the title of the opinion piece, ‘…getting high on their own supply.’

In part this is out in the open. Some claim it is beneficial for researchers and therapists involved in psychedelic studies not to avoid, but to experience, the high. Dr. Rick Doblin is a high profile advocate of this view. He resigned this month as head of Lykos after FDA rejected its applications. Doblin, who founded the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), is on record as asserting that therapists using MDMA with clients should experience the drug they are working with.

And that brings me back to the history of this viewpoint and Dr. Humphry Osmond, one of the pioneers of psychedelic research before it became illegal in the 1970s. As I write in my book, Osmond’searly work in the ‘50s involved the psychedelic mescalin, which he (along with colleague Dr. John Smythies) discovered how it induced a mental state similar to schizophrenia. To Osmond, this made it useful for studying schizophrenic patients. Moreover, he believed it was beneficial for the therapist to try the drug in order to experience a disturbance similar to, and helpful for understanding, the mental state of their patients.

Of course, I have no way to judge the merits of the study by Lykos Therapeutics. According to reports, there were a number of issues, including ethical questions, that caused the FDA to reject the data and results presented in the study.

I’m just saying…it feels a bit like déjà vu to me.