Mushroom Belief Corrupts Lab Sanctity

The New York Times published an article recently suggesting that the much-lauded, psychedelic neuroscientist Roland Griffiths was a “true believer” in the mushroom. Certain colleagues have now openly accused Griffiths (who died last October) of compromising the controlled studies of psilocybin effects on the human psyche with mystical language. As it turns out Griffiths had not only regularly expressed his wide-eyed wonder at the mystical power of the mushroom, but had himself recently taken these drugs—a point which the New York Times holds in particular disdain. The psilocybin experiments, conducted on blind participants—some received a placebo—were held in the manner of new age medicine journeys. From a certain viewpoint (exemplified by the bias of this article and of Griffiths’ disgruntled colleagues) the scientific method must maintain a kind of isolated sacred space (the laboratory) that brooks no human influence, especially that of belief. It would certainly be more objective, then, had they conducted these experiments on rats, for rats—probably—do not believe in anything (thank god). Be that as it may: the whole episode gets to what is intractable about using science to investigate the mystical effects of the mushroom, which was Griffith’s expressed goal this whole time (see for instance this famous study of the mystical effects of psilocybin on terminal cancer patients, or his last study Effects of Psilocybin-facilitated Experience on the Psychology and Effectiveness of Professional Leaders in Religion) One may credit him for the attempt, but is it science? Still, there is a certain kind of scientist (not Griffiths) who remains rather dunderheaded regarding the topic of belief in general; as if Science had done away with belief 500 years ago, once and for all; little realizing that the “certainty” of scientific fact is itself dependent upon belief.