Reply to comment

Jenna brings up an interesting point - that we seem to be more skeptical of SSRI's than MDMA, and while I think Liz is right and part of it has to do with the fact that they are often treating different things, I also think research has something to do with it. The sheer volume of research we have on SSRI's, both positive and negative, allows us to draw more and different conclusions. There is much less research on the therapeutic potential of illicit drugs, and this, at least for me, leaves more room for hope. Naturally we want to help those suffering with PTSD, and if there's any way MDMA would benefit sufferers, I would like to explore it further. In other words, I can be more positive about MDMA because there isn't a whole lot of research telling me not to be. Maybe it's because the readings and discussion were fairly persuasive, but it seems absolutely unfair to deny MDMA as a *possible* treatment option. Of course it has negatives (suicidal tuesdays, other side effects), but you'd be hard pressed to find a current therapeutic drug without a laundry list of side effects. I also think Emily brings up a great point - it's about the combination of drugs and therapy - not drugs alone.

I don't want to make it sound like I'm all for psychadelics, but at this point I'm all for their research. The most important thing missing for me is a mechanism of action (which is also what makes me skeptical of any other drug). In order to better understand the mechanism, we need better methods of doing so; our current level of brain imaging studies aren't going to cut it. I think animal models are the best option at this point (which I'm sure we'll get into this week). As far as recreational usage goes, I think that is a question that should be tackled far after we get the green light to study them.

Professor Grobstein's mention of scientific integrity is especially important. While we're taught to be critical of the literature, we also expect scientists to uphold reliable practices. Without the ability to place faith in the literature, experimental science is absolutely useless. That said, mistakes are inevitable and likely accidental. Is it coincidental that ecstacy and LSD landed on the schedule I list shortly after damaging papers? No way. Were the research mistakes accidental? Debatable, but probably. The problem here is in governmental regulation, which I am at a complete loss to propose a solution. In my mind it raises a lot of ethical questions (both medical and political), and when politics and the government enter any field it becomes hairy. It's possible that the papers evoked a fear (what if that really could happen?) and the classifications come out of concern. But that doesn't change the reality that these drugs may at some point be useful for PTSD sufferers. At this point I think it's the stigma (brought on by who? the government?) attached to the drugs that is preventing people from advocating for their potential usefulness.

I know that that was messy toward the end, but I look forward to hearing what others think about the government's role in this.