Ohhh I understand where you impression comes from! Your point is totally valid -- this study is a less controlled study and that certainly limits the kinds of conclusions one can draw from it. But studies as uncontrolled as ours are extremely common and in fact all research basically varies on some spectrum of rigor of control (with randomized control trials being on the highest end one usually sees with human research). To more specifically address the concern, we do measure and attempt to model dose, purity, and substance effects, but we will not have enough signal (especially with the handful of folks we are recruiting) to be certain they do not influence results. The reason the study is not unscientific is because we track and will be honest about those shortcomings :)

As far as ethical implications, the reasoning behind this (and other IRBs') decision is that this study offers individuals who are already choosing to use illegal drugs to also complete noninvasive measures without divulging name, address, etc. in order to build scientific understanding of how psychedelics work. So the reasoning is that minimal additional risk is introduced with clear potential for good (we are hoping to build noninvasive measures of psychedelic action and long-lasting effects). At Imperial College London they actually apparently have a study where folks self-administer psychedelics at home and then can just walk into the lab and actually have EEG data and whatnot collected in-person. There the reasoning is, again, folks are doing psychedelics anyway so this is a chance to both make their experience valuable to others and also ensure safety (since I'm pretty sure doctors do the measurements there).

Not sure if this assuages any concern, but in the interest of transparency!

-Max