Six months after a landmark investigative report by Mad in America called for the immediate retraction of a high-profile study on psychedelic therapy, the academic community is facing a moment of reckoning. On March 12, 2026, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology (JHP) issued a formal “Expression of Concern” regarding the 2021 article, “A Qualitative Exploration of Relational Ethical Challenges and Practices in Psychedelic Healing,” authored by William Brennan and his colleagues.
This move by JHP signals a significant escalation in a long-standing controversy that touches on sexual abuse allegations, institutional gatekeeping, and the ethics of a burgeoning multi-billion-dollar industry. The Expression of Concern serves as a formal warning to the scientific community that the paper’s reliability is currently under investigation, marking a potential precursor to a full retraction.
The Core Controversy: Allegations of Omitted Abuse
The paper at the center of this storm was originally published in 2021, during a period of intense cultural and financial interest in psychedelic-assisted therapy. Lead author William Brennan, alongside co-authors M. Jackson, K. MacLean, and J. Ponterotto, aimed to map the ethical landscape of "underground" psychedelic healing. However, critics argue that the study did not merely observe this landscape but actively sought to sanitize it.
The primary allegation against the Brennan et al. paper is one of profound ethical omission. According to reports from Mad in America, the study deliberately excluded participant interviews that detailed instances of sexual abuse and misconduct. By filtering out these accounts, the paper presented a skewed version of "relational ethics" that favored the practitioners over the safety of the clients.
Furthermore, the study has been accused of "psychedelic exceptionalism"—the philosophical stance that the profound healing potential of substances like psilocybin or MDMA justifies a loosening of traditional clinical boundaries. This framework, critics argue, provides a "bioethical wash" for practices that would be considered predatory or malpractice in any other therapeutic context.
A Chronology of Institutional Friction (2021–2026)
To understand the weight of the current Expression of Concern, one must look at the "tortuous history" of the paper’s journey through the academic and public spheres.
2021: The Publication and the First Whistleblowers
- September 16, 2021: JHP publishes the Brennan et al. paper. It is initially greeted as a foundational text for understanding the nuances of underground therapy.
- September 25, 2021: Investigative reports emerge alleging systemic abuse by two prominent psychedelic therapists, Aharon Grossbard and Francoise Bourzat.
- October 4, 2021: In response to growing whispers, Brennan publishes a "Disclosure of Positionality" on ResearchGate. He admits that Grossbard was his mentor and that many of his study’s subjects were likely drawn from Grossbard and Bourzat’s student pool, creating a massive, previously undisclosed conflict of interest.
- December 2021: Mainstream outlets like Inverse and New York Magazine publish harrowing accounts of sexual misconduct involving Grossbard and Bourzat. JHP publishes Brennan’s disclosure as an official addendum but notably omits his earlier warning to "careful readers" to look for bias in his results.
2022–2025: Disavowal and Investigation
- May 2022: In a surprising turn, Brennan himself posts on ResearchGate, disavowing his research as not "inherently valid" and pulling his doctoral dissertation from public view to prevent it from supporting "dubious or abusive practices."
- February 27, 2025: Formal requests for retraction are filed with JHP and Sage Publications, citing the omission of abuse data.
- May 27, 2025: JHP Editor-in-Chief Sarah Kamens adds an "Editor’s Note" to the article, stating that some practices described in the study are explicitly disallowed by mental health ethical guidelines.
- September 13, 2025: Mad in America publishes a definitive report: "The Case for Retraction: Psychedelic Therapy Study Omitted Interviews that Told of Sexual Abuse."
2026: The Expression of Concern
- January 5, 2026: In a sign of the industry’s attempt to distance itself from "psychedelic" controversy, Cybin Inc. rebrands as Helus Pharma, shifting its marketing language toward "novel serotonergic agonists."
- March 12, 2026: JHP officially issues the Expression of Concern, confirming an active investigation into the paper’s integrity.
Supporting Data: The Case for Retraction
The demand for a full retraction is based on three primary pillars of research misconduct and ethical failure:
1. Intentional Data Suppression
The most severe charge is that Brennan’s qualitative analysis was not representative of his data set. Qualitative research relies on the integrity of the researcher to report themes accurately. By allegedly omitting testimonies of sexual abuse, the authors did not just commit an error; they committed a fundamental breach of the scientific record. This omission effectively "silenced" victims of abuse within the very literature meant to protect them.
2. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest and Subject Bias
The revelation that the study’s subjects were students of the lead author’s mentor—individuals who were often part of a tight-knit, insular community led by Grossbard and Bourzat—undermines the study’s validity. This "incestuous" research loop creates a high risk of "demand characteristics," where participants provide the answers they believe their mentors want to hear, especially in a community where dissent was reportedly punished.
3. The Promotion of "Psychedelic Exceptionalism"
The Brennan paper argued for a revision of ethical standards, suggesting that the "unique" nature of psychedelic states required different boundary-setting than traditional therapy. Critics argue this served as a theoretical shield for practitioners like Grossbard and Bourzat, allowing them to frame boundary violations as "advanced" or "sacred" therapeutic techniques rather than ethical breaches.
Official Responses: A House Divided
The institutional response to these allegations has been far from uniform, highlighting the difficulties of policing ethics in cross-disciplinary research.
Fordham University’s Stance
Fordham University, where Brennan completed the research for his dissertation, conducted an internal review and declared the matter "closed" in late 2025. However, the university’s investigation was narrow in scope, focusing strictly on whether Brennan followed the protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and whether there was evidence of "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism." Because the allegations involve the omission of data and ethical nuances rather than the invention of data, Fordham’s binary criteria found no technical violation.
The Journal of Humanistic Psychology (JHP)
Unlike Fordham, JHP and its publisher, Sage, have signaled that the ethical implications go beyond mere protocol compliance. Sarah Kamens, Editor-in-Chief of JHP, stated in a recent email: “Sage and JHP take all publication ethics concerns very seriously; we aim to resolve these concerns by taking actions in line with COPE [Committee on Publication Ethics] guidelines and industry best practice.”
By issuing the Expression of Concern, JHP is acknowledging that even if the IRB protocol was technically followed, the integrity of the resulting paper is in doubt.
Implications for the Future of Psychedelic Medicine
The fallout from the Brennan paper has repercussions far beyond a single academic journal. It serves as a cautionary tale for the entire field of psychedelic science.
The "Warning Label" and AI Discovery
A significant critique of the current Expression of Concern is its lack of transparency. According to COPE guidelines, such notices should clearly state the reasons for the concern. Currently, JHP’s notice is tucked away in sub-menus, making it difficult for downstream services—such as AI research assistants and bibliometric databases—to flag the study as potentially unreliable. If the "warning label" is invisible to the algorithms that now drive scientific discovery, the tainted data continues to circulate as fact.
Protecting the Vulnerable
The core of this controversy is the safety of clients. When academic journals publish studies that minimize or omit reports of abuse, they provide a veneer of legitimacy to dangerous practitioners. The "psychedelic gold rush" has attracted massive venture capital, but if the scientific foundation of the field is built on sanitized data, the risk of a systemic "ethics wash" becomes a reality.
The Need for Transparency
As the investigation continues, the psychedelic research community is watching closely. The resolution of this case will set a precedent: Will the field prioritize the protection of its "pioneers" and the preservation of its "healing" narrative, or will it embrace the rigorous, often uncomfortable transparency required of medical science?
For now, the Brennan et al. paper remains in a state of academic limbo—a "warning label" on a study that many believe should have never seen the light of day. The Expression of Concern is a step toward accountability, but for the survivors of the abuse that was allegedly edited out of the narrative, it may be a case of too little, too late.
