The meeting’s aim (and, indeed, that of ECNP more broadly) was to bring together academia, regulators and industry to discuss the future of psychedelics. ECNP’s dedicated Psychedelic Research Thematic Working Group, meanwhile, has a number of specific goals that range from theoretical to concrete: from supporting policymaking and examining mechanisms and pathways of psychedelic action through to investing in shared stocks of GMP psychedelics and sharing data.
The meeting’s agenda was split into a number of keynotes and sessions including preclinical pharmacology, clinical aspects of psychedelic research, and regulatory considerations. While there was a small amount of unpublished data shared5 (including Timmermann et al.’s DMT brain imaging study, which was released the next day), a significant portion of the discussion revolved around what we don’t know.
The most common phrase I heard uttered by speakers and panellists across these sessions was, “we don’t know”; usually followed by some explanation of the type of research that might bridge the knowledge gap they described.
These gaps and questions include (but are certainly not limited to):
A more thorough understanding of the interactions between antidepressants like SSRIs and psychedelics.
A reliable separation of the therapeutic effect of the psychotherapy versus the psychedelic.
How to ensure and maintain blind; or, how to measure the blind and adjust data accordingly.
The optimal duration of a trip.
Will non-hallucinogenic psychedelics (psychoplastogens) be effective?
Why do some patients experience enduring benefits, while for others beneficial effects appear to wear off quickly?
What is the optimal number of dosing sessions, and timing?
The search for preclinical assays with reliable translatability to humans.
On the topic of these gaps, David Nutt suggested that more preclinical research is needed. The preclinical side of the field needs to “catch up” to the clinical, he said.
