Six months after an intensive investigative report by Mad in America called for the formal retraction of a controversial study on psychedelic therapy, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology (JHP) has issued an "Expression of Concern." This move signals a significant escalation in a multi-year debate regarding research integrity, the omission of sexual abuse data, and the potential for "ethics washing" within the rapidly expanding field of psychedelic-assisted healing.
The paper in question, titled "A Qualitative Exploration of Relational Ethical Challenges and Practices in Psychedelic Healing," was published in 2021 by lead author William Brennan, alongside co-authors Jackson, M., MacLean, K., and Ponterotto, J. While the study was initially presented as a groundbreaking exploration of the unique ethical landscape of psychedelic therapy, it has since become a lightning rod for critics who argue that the research sanitized a history of predatory behavior and systemic abuse.
The Core Controversy: Omission and Influence
At the heart of the call for retraction is the allegation that the Brennan et al. paper failed to maintain the fundamental standards of qualitative research. Specifically, critics and whistleblowers allege that the study systematically omitted interview data that detailed sexual abuse and boundary violations.
The study’s lead author, William Brennan, was a doctoral student at Fordham University at the time of the research. However, his ties to the subjects of his study have raised profound questions about "positionality"—the researcher’s relationship to their subject matter. It was later revealed that Brennan was a student of Aharon Grossbard, a prominent figure in the "underground" and semi-underground psychedelic community. Grossbard, along with his wife and professional partner Francoise Bourzat, has been the subject of numerous allegations of sexual misconduct and ethical malpractice.
Critics argue that by drawing research subjects from the Grossbard/Bourzat student body and subsequently failing to report the accounts of abuse within that community, the paper functioned less as a scientific inquiry and more as a defensive shield for abusive practitioners. This phenomenon has been termed "psychedelic exceptionalism"—the idea that because psychedelics offer "extraordinary" healing, traditional ethical boundaries and therapist accountability mechanisms must be revised or even discarded.
A Chronology of a Tortuous Academic History
The timeline of this controversy reveals a slow but steady unraveling of the paper’s credibility, marked by half-disclosures and evolving institutional responses.
- September 16, 2021: JHP publishes the original Brennan et al. paper. The study suggests that the "unique" nature of psychedelic states may require a shift in how we view therapeutic boundaries.
- September 25, 2021: Mad in America publishes an exposé by a former student, "Ending the Silence on Psychedelic Therapy Abuse," which details specific allegations of misconduct against Grossbard and Bourzat.
- October 4, 2021: In response to the growing outcry, Brennan and his co-authors publish a "Disclosure of Positionality" on ResearchGate. Brennan admits Grossbard was his mentor and that many study participants were Grossbard’s students. He advises readers to "attend to any bias" in his analysis.
- November 2021: Major media outlets, including Inverse and New York Magazine, publish further investigations into the Grossbard/Bourzat abuse allegations, corroborating the claims of sexual misconduct and the normalization of "touch" in their training schools.
- December 6, 2021: JHP publishes the "Disclosure of Positionality" as an official addendum. Crucially, the version published by the journal omits the sentence from the ResearchGate version that urged readers to be alert for bias.
- May 2022: In a startling turn, Brennan posts on ResearchGate disavowing his own research as not "inherently valid." He removes his dissertation from public view, stating he wishes to prevent the data from "serving as supportive literature for dubious or abusive practices."
- February 27, 2025: Formal requests for retraction are sent to JHP Editor Sarah Kamens and Sage Publications, citing the omission of abuse data and the author’s own disavowal of the work.
- May 27, 2025: JHP adds an "Editor’s Note" to the article, stating that some practices described in the paper were "explicitly disallowed by ethical guidelines in the mental health professions."
- September 13, 2025: Mad in America publishes "The Case for Retraction," detailing how the study allegedly suppressed interviews that spoke of sexual abuse.
- March 12, 2026: JHP officially publishes the "Expression of Concern," confirming an ongoing investigation into the paper’s reliability.
Supporting Data and the "Warning Label"
The issuance of an "Expression of Concern" (EOC) is a rare and serious step in academic publishing. According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an EOC serves as a "warning label" for the scientific community. It is used when an investigation is underway but has not yet reached a final conclusion of retraction or exoneration.
However, the current EOC issued by JHP has come under fire for its lack of transparency. COPE guidelines state that such notices should "state the reasons for the concern." The JHP notice, as it currently stands, mentions an investigation but fails to specify the nature of the allegations—namely, the omission of sexual abuse reports and the researcher’s conflict of interest.
Furthermore, the visibility of the notice has been criticized. Rather than appearing as a clear, unmissable banner on the article’s main page, it is tucked away under a sub-menu titled "View correction/original article/reply article." This lack of prominence means that search engines, AI aggregators, and other researchers may continue to cite the study without realizing its integrity is being formally questioned.
Official Responses: Fordham vs. JHP
The institutional responses to the Brennan case highlight a divide between procedural compliance and ethical integrity.
Fordham University, where the research was conducted, concluded its own investigation in late 2025. The university determined that the "matter is closed," finding no evidence of "research misconduct" as defined by their specific policy—which is limited to "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism." Fordham’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) focused on whether Brennan followed the approved protocol, not whether the resulting paper was ethically sound or if it omitted vital qualitative data that fell outside the narrow scope of the protocol.
In contrast, Sarah Kamens, Editor-In-Chief of JHP, has indicated that the journal’s investigation is broader. In a recent statement, Kamens said:
"We continue to investigate and address the case. I am working in close collaboration with the Sage Research Integrity team. Sage and JHP take all publication ethics concerns very seriously; we aim to resolve these concerns by taking actions in line with COPE guidelines, industry best practice, and the American Psychological Association ethical principles and code."
The journal’s decision to keep the investigation open despite Fordham’s closure suggests that JHP is looking at the "epistemological integrity" of the work—whether a study on "ethics" can be considered valid if it ignores reports of the very ethical violations it claims to study.
The Implications: Ethics Washing in the Psychedelic Renaissance
The Brennan case is more than a dispute over a single academic paper; it is a microcosm of the "Gold Rush" currently occurring in the psychedelic industry. As venture capital flows into the field and companies like the former Cybin Inc. (now rebranded as Helus Pharma) move toward medicalization, there is a powerful incentive to present psychedelic therapy as a safe, revolutionary paradigm.
The concept of "psychedelic exceptionalism" is particularly dangerous in this context. If the industry accepts the premise that psychedelics are so unique that they require a "new ethics"—one that might prioritize "shamanic" traditions over patient safety or allow for "therapeutic touch" that blurs the lines of consent—it creates a vacuum where abuse can flourish.
By publishing the Brennan paper, critics argue that JHP inadvertently "vouched" for a framework that allowed abusers to operate with impunity under the guise of "healing." The retraction of this paper would send a powerful message to the field: that no amount of "healing potential" justifies the suppression of victim accounts or the abandonment of established ethical safeguards.
As the investigation continues, the psychedelic community and the broader academic world are watching closely. The final decision by JHP and Sage Publishing will serve as a landmark ruling on whether the "psychedelic renaissance" will be built on a foundation of rigorous transparency or on the strategic silence of those it claims to help.
