Re: MAPS: Research Proposal Review Request

["Bob Greer" <greers_maps@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This looks interesting.  Here are some quickly jotted, immediate ideas about
your study.  This will be done in one pass; I apologize for the
misspellings and gramatical errors you'll surely find in my suggestions.

Let's see...


>HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
>II. ABSTRACT
>A. Briefly describe the purpose of the research:
>The purpose of this research is to describe the experiences of adults who
>use entheogenic substances for their own personal healing/ spiritual
>growth.

Well, this doesn't define personal healing or spiritual growth.  Emic vs
etic conflict here.

And "spiritual" and "healing" mean so many things to so many people.  To
broad to be useful.


>>B. Describe the procedures: (what will the subjects do?)
>This study will rely entirely on naturalistic observations and interviews.
>Research participants will engage in their entheogenic experiences on their
>own terms, in their own chosen settings, and with the use of their own
>substances.

Sounds illegal in the USA.

Does "conspiracy to..." worry you?  I think it should.

Also: how will you know what they _really_ took unless you accept samples
and test them?  Got a license for that?

> The researcher will not manipulate any variables other than
>being present during the experience.  The researcher will interview
>participants during the experience and at follow-up intervals of
>approximately one week and three months.
>

The qualifications of the researcher aren't defined here.  "Just being
present" during someone's psychedelic death-rebirth experience is a lot more
influential than "just being there" during the pencil-and-paper quiz they
took before hand.

And the influence will very greatly, depending on the sacrament used, the
dosage, and the personality and set of everyone involved.

Honestly, and not to sound rude, but this experiment is now officially
out-of-control.  Unless the goal is to "measure the effects of 'being
present' during random drug-abuse escapades."



>D.  Are data anonymous or confidential?  If confidential, describe how
>confidentiality is to be maintained?
>Confidentiality will be maintained in three ways.  First, only the
>researcher will have knowledge of participants.  Second, all the names of
>participants will be changed in the transcripts and research report.
>Third, all tapes will be erased after transcripts are completed.
>

Well, so much for peer review of the method.

And there goes what repeatability that existed "out the window."

This is now, officially, not science.


>Potential participants will be excluded based upon the following criteria:
>lack of entheogenic experience with a psychotherapeutic/spiritual
>intention; refusing to agree to remain in a safe setting while the
>researcher is present; and inability to articulate a well-planned
>entheogenic session.
>

Which drugs are _not_ entheogens?

Alcohol _is_ entheogenic in certain doses and settings.

The definition of spiritual becomes very relevent suddenly: an objective
standard seems to be implied here.

Given the illegal context of much sacramental use, restricting the
experiment to a "safe setting" is questionable.  After all, if you aren't
liable, legally, since you didn't administer it then why should you be
liable if they get hurt using it?

How will you analyze the data to discover just how seriously it is skewed
<grin> by _requiring_ participants to "act safely'?

How will you analyze the actions of people who "act safely" just so they can
contribute to your experiment?

Do you think there is something non-spiritual or non-therapeutic about
refusing to take risks?

Really, if risk-taking behaviour is excluded for your study of people using
sacraments as they normally do it, I must doubt the validity of your
approach.

"Go where they go and stay entirely out of their way while they do it."

>IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.
>A. Describe the research design.
>This is a qualitative study which relies on naturalistic observation and
>interviews to identify the phenomenon being studied and minimize any
>interference with participants' natural environments.  A phenomenological
>perspective is employed to allow the meaning of the experience to be
>defined by the participants.
>


"qualitative" is ok in anthropology, to some extent.  "naturalistic
observation" tells us nothing about your methodology, really.  "minimize
interference" is too vague.   Is "phenomenological perspective" a way of
saying that you'll present their opinions, as verbalized then and later, as
descriptions of what they are actually experiencing and doing?  (That's like
eating with a fork that has just one prong.  "God" for example has no
standard meaning; will there be a chart saying "50% talked to God, %30
became God, and %10 took a lease-to-buy option on Godhood, with %10 refusing
to comment since nobody is there to listen anyway"?)


>V. ASSESSMENT OF RISKS AND BENEFITS.
>A. Describe the nature of any potential risks.  These include stress,
>social, legal, discomfort, invasion of privacy, or embarrassment, and side
>effects.
>Participation in this study involves no risks beyond those that
>participants engage in on their own.  As an ethnographic study, this

Embarrassment is definitely a possibility.  And there _is_ a legal component
here for them and for you.


>research only looks to describe a particular phenomenon in the world.  The


Presenting someone's claimed phenomenological perspective may not involve
describing any particular phenomenon except for that person's claims.

And since the recording will be destroyed, no re-examination will be
possible, later, with more sophisiticated analytic tools.

>risks inherent in entheogenic exploration include (a) temporary
>experiencing of painful emotions, (b) ingestion of substances other than
>the intended substance, and (c) arrest for possession of a controlled
>substance.
>


For the subject, these exist.  A and C also exist for the observer.

>B. Describe how each of the risks in part A will be minimized.
>The risks in part A are, as stated, not part of the research study, but
>part of participants' usual involvement with entheogenic exploration.  In
>order to minimize these risks entheogenic explorers will often (a) have a
>person with them who can talk them through difficult emotions if necessary,
>(b) acquire substances from trusted acquaintances, and (c) be very discreet
>when obtaining and possessing controlled substances.
>

Many entheogens (in fact, most) are certainly not controlled substances in
the USA.

How will you interpret the results from experiments that employ quasi-legal
entheogens?


>C. In the event that any of these potential risks occur, how will it be
>handled (e.g., compensation, counseling, etc.)?
>While the researcher will attempt to minimize the amount of interference
>with participants' experiences, intervention may be appropriate under some
>conditions.  The researcher's training and experience as a counselor with
>clients under the influence of psychoactive drugs has prepared him to
>assist people in modulating their emotional states while intoxicated.  In
>the case of a bad reaction to an ingested drug, each participant will agree
>that the researcher will call for medical assistance if needed.
>

Is this how they usually handle their "bad reactions"?

Anthropologist (usually) don't offer help during their studies.  Why
shouldn't you follow the accepted method here?

Who decides if medical assistance is needed?

Does "medical assistance" include psychatric care?  (Remembering that
hallucinosis is a medical condition according to the DSM, when I last
checked, a strict adherance to this will truncate most of your experiments
quickly.)

Who's insurance get's billed?

Do these experimenters usually take their sacraments with _trained_
councilors like yourself?

What school of therapy do you ascribe to?  Does this comprise "medical
assistance"?

Are you legally liable for a malpractice suit if they abreact seriously
while under your care if you treat them?

Do your qualifications make you skilled at helping people of any sort using
any sacrament under a wide variety of non-controlled conditions?

I would wonder, if I was reviewing this application, whether you were trying
to get some extra councelling credentials for yourself in this round-about
manner.  Of course that's not the case, but the stigma would potentially
exist (especially if something "went wrong.")

Why did you decide to retain people who receive this counciling in the
experiment?  Should they be excluded from the experiment instead since a
totally non-standard event (medical intervention by the "passive" observer)
occurs in this case?


>D. Will the study interfere with any subject's normal routine (e.g., school
>attendance, medical treatment, etc.)?
>Each participant will choose the time to engage in the entheogenic session.
> This will be planned at least two weeks in advance to give both the
>participant and the researcher time to prepare.  Participants will be able
>to plan the sessions so they do not interfere with their normal routines.



What about people who use the I-Ching, television synchronicity, or other
ideosyncratic methods to decide whether to use their sacrament on that day?
What, in other words, does "planned two weeks in advance" entail?

What about people who's usage normally does interfer with their routines?


>Follow-up interviews will be conducted at participants' convenience.
>
>E. Describe the expected benefits to society and to the individual
>subjects?
>The benefits to society include an increased awareness of how entheogenic
>substances can enhance the personal and spiritual growth of those who
>ingest these substances with a psychotherapeutic and/or spiritual intent.


I question whether this study is scientific enough to convince society of
anything.



>Additionally, people in the helping professions can begin to learn how to
>better create the conditions that lead to psychotherapeutic change.



There are no scientific tests for change included in this study, as you've
described it.  Quite a few studies of sacraments have shown, repeatedly,
that most people _report_ improvements.  But do they really occur?  No
follow-up period, over months or years, is included in this study; and
therapy is concerned with the long-term effects.  And would a long-term
review of their state be meaningful since they are using the drugs at their
liesure during the years involved?


>Participants will benefit by having their voices heard and the accompanying
>sense of empowerment brought about by having their stories told.
>

Why would a medical journal (for example) be a more empowering place to tell
their stories than, say, around a campfire with friends?  Is this
"empowerment" or just an exagerated sense of self-importance resulting from
overly-accepting reporting by a sympathetic councilor?

To what degree will the expectation of being "reported" affect their reports
(and their subjective experiences)?

I do no see, personally, how an awareness that they were "representing"
their culture in the "battle to raise public awareness" could be allowed to
them without upsetting the original, non-interventionist and naturalistic
premise of the experiment.



>VI. ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
>B.  Will any other drugs be used? YES
>If YES, list for each drug:  1) the name of the drug; 2) the source of the
>drug; 3) the dosage; 4) any side effects or toxicity; 5) how it will be
>administered; 6) by whom will it be administered.
>This is an ethnographic study of individuals who use psychoactive drugs for
>a particular purpose.  No drugs will be provided or administered by the
>researcher.  Participants will obtain the drugs through their own channels,
>decide on the dosage themselves, and self-administer the drugs.  While it
>is impossible to know the contents and dosages of illicit drugs, it is
>expected that participants will be taking entheogenic drugs such as
>psilocybin, MDMA, LSD, and DMT.  The expected route of administration is
>oral ingestion.  There is no known toxicity associated with any of these
>drugs at therapeutic doses.
>

You do not know the doses employed though, so the non-toxicity judgement is
specious here.

Are psilocybin, MDMA, LSD and DMT entheogens at all "therapeutic" dosages?
My reading says "no."  The entactogenic effects (for example) lie within a
particular window of both dosage and time.  How will you tell, objectively,
when the psychedelic portion of an LSD experience tapers off and the
entactogenic period of it kicks in - simply by the sense of empathy you will
share with the experimenter perhaps?  Ooops - there went the
"non-interventionist observer" role!

What about botanicals?  The variety of effects of various mushrooms is
tremendous and depends on many variables; some psilocybin mushrooms are
_not_ entactogens for example, while others seem to be.  The drug is
certainly not really know here; likewise for marijuana.  And the
distribution of LSD analags, under the name "LSD", is more common than many
people realize.  And many "mushrooms" are simply field mushrooms treated
with LSD.  Likewise, some commonly sold mushrooms quickly develop a "body
load" as they age for a few months (and as the psilocin decomposes in them):
this is a toxic effect.

Are you medically sophisticated enough to distinguish between a "bad
reaction" that "requires" counciling and a physical reaction that requires
medical intervention (or a teaspoon of baking soda in a glass of water)?

Sure, I sound like a sour-puss.  Maybe I am.  But I'm also a degreed
scientist (in a "hard science") with some university-level education in
anthropology and cognitive psychology.  I really think this experiment to
too vague, too large, too uncontrolled, and too unrepeatable or reexaminable
to be called scientific in any sense.  It seems to offer, at best, a
propaganda wedge for "the movement."  Not really different, in type, from
the experiments that it is meant to counter.

Here's an example of what I mean: what, exactly, is the theory that you are
testing?  Can your experiment show that the theory is in error?  Or have you
_guaranteed_ your desired results by selecting conditions and a method that
will guarantee them?

How, exactly, could your theory be shown _false_ by the experiment?


Sincerly,

Bob Greer

PS, May I suggest that you pay a skilled lawyer to review your experiment
before you do it?  A quick scan by your university's ethicist might be in
order too. - BG




------------------
MAPS-Forum@xxxxxxxx, a member service of the Multidisciplinary Association
for Psychedelic Studies (to become a member, see www.maps.org/memsub.html).
To [un]subscribe, email the message text,
[un]subscribe maps-forum youraddress to majordomo@xxxxxxxx