ArticlePsychopharmacology2026
Psychedelic researchers' own experiences of psychedelic substances, their link to opinions of psychedelics, and reflections on positionality.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding treatment expectations toward emerging therapies in veterinary medicine: the role of knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward psychedelic-assisted interventions.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleAnecdotal evidence suggests that psychedelic researchers often have personal experiences with psychedelic substances. While such experiences may benefit research, concerns have been raised about potential biases and "excessive enthusiasm." However, the prevalence of personal experiences, their perceived relevance, and their association with opinions about psychedelics remain underexplored.
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate how common personal psychedelic experiences are among psychedelic researchers, their perceived relevance to research, and whether personal use is associated with opinions about psychedelics.
methodsParticipants (N = 111) conducting psychedelic research in academic settings were recruited. Data were collected on personal experiences, their perceived relevance, and opinions about psychedelics. Regression analyses examined associations between personal use and opinions.
resultsMost respondents (85%) reported personal experiences with classic psychedelics. On average, they saw personal experience as beneficial for research, but also as potential source of bias. They acknowledged the importance of self-reflection and the need to disclose personal experiences, but found disclosure challenging in practice. Personal use predicted more positive opinions about psychedelics' potential to improve well-being, transform society, address the ecological crisis, and answer spiritual questions (regression βs = 0.3 - 0.5, ps < 0.01).
conclusionsThe findings highlight the prevalence of personal psychedelic experiences among this sample of researchers and their influence on research interests and opinions. The results underscore the need for open discussion and reflection. Future studies should explore whether the observed associations reflect causal relationships or potential biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.