The burgeoning field of psychedelic-assisted therapy, often hailed as a "renaissance" in mental health treatment, is currently facing a profound reckoning regarding its ethical foundations and scientific rigor. At the center of this storm is a controversial 2021 study published in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology (JHP), which has now become the subject of an official "Expression of Concern." This move by the journal marks a significant escalation in a multi-year effort by whistleblowers and investigative journalists to address allegations of data omission, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and the shielding of abusive practices within the psychedelic community.
On March 12, 2026, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology took the rare step of flagging the paper, "A Qualitative Exploration of Relational Ethical Challenges and Practices in Psychedelic Healing," authored by William Brennan and colleagues. The Expression of Concern serves as a formal "warning label" for the global scientific community, signaling that the reliability of the research is under active investigation. This development follows a series of damning reports—most notably by the advocacy and news outlet Mad in America—which suggest that the study may have systematically omitted participant testimonies involving sexual abuse to maintain a narrative of "psychedelic exceptionalism."
The Core Controversy: Omissions and "Ethics Washing"
The primary catalyst for the investigation is the allegation that the lead author, William Brennan, failed to include critical data in his qualitative analysis. According to reports, several interview subjects provided accounts of sexual misconduct and boundary violations committed by prominent figures in the psychedelic field. However, these accounts were reportedly absent from the final published paper.
The paper, published in 2021, attempted to map out the "relational ethical challenges" of underground psychedelic therapy. Critics argue that by omitting reports of abuse, the paper functioned as a form of "ethics washing"—providing a veneer of academic legitimacy to practices and practitioners who were actively harming clients. Specifically, the paper has been accused of advocating for "psychedelic exceptionalism": the idea that because psychedelic substances produce profound, "mystical" healing states, traditional clinical boundaries and ethical safeguards (such as those prohibiting dual relationships or physical touch) should be relaxed or entirely rewritten.
A Chronology of Scrutiny: 2021–2026
The timeline of this controversy reveals a tortuous path toward accountability, involving academic institutions, corporate interests, and independent journalists.
- September 16, 2021: The Journal of Humanistic Psychology publishes the Brennan et al. paper. The study is initially received as a groundbreaking qualitative look at the "underground" world of psychedelic healing.
- September 25, 2021: Mad in America publishes an exposé detailing allegations of abuse by Aharon Grossbard and Francoise Bourzat, two titans of the psychedelic training world. It is later revealed that Brennan was a student of Grossbard and that many study participants were likely drawn from the Grossbard/Bourzat circle.
- October–December 2021: Under increasing pressure, Brennan and his co-authors publish a "Disclosure of Positionality." In it, Brennan admits that Grossbard was his mentor and that his results may reflect this bias. However, a later addendum published in the journal notably omits a sentence from the original disclosure that urged readers to be alert for bias.
- May 2022: In a startling move, William Brennan posts on ResearchGate disavowing his own research, stating it is not "inherently valid." He removes his doctoral dissertation from public view to prevent it from being used to support "dubious or abusive practices."
- February–May 2025: Formal requests for retraction are sent to JHP and Sage Publications. The journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Sarah Kamens, issues an "Editor’s Note" acknowledging that some practices described in the paper are "explicitly disallowed" by standard mental health ethical guidelines.
- September 13, 2025: Mad in America publishes a comprehensive report titled "The Case for Retraction," which details how the study specifically omitted interviews that told of sexual abuse.
- January 5, 2026: In a move reflecting the broader industry’s attempt to distance itself from the "psychedelic" label amid these controversies, Cybin Inc. rebrands to Helus Pharma, replacing the term "psychedelic" with "novel serotonergic agonists" in its marketing. Brennan et al. had previously been criticized for failing to properly disclose ties to Cybin.
- March 12, 2026: JHP publishes the formal Expression of Concern, officially placing the paper under investigation for retraction.
Supporting Data: The Failure of Disclosure and Methodology
The case against the Brennan paper rests on several pillars of academic and ethical misconduct. First is the issue of Positionality and Conflict of Interest. Brennan’s relationship with Grossbard and Bourzat was not merely academic; he was a student in their training program. If the participants in his qualitative study were also students or clients of these same mentors, the "qualitative exploration" becomes an echo chamber rather than a scientific inquiry.
Second is the Omission of Harm. In qualitative research, the researcher acts as the instrument of analysis. If a researcher encounters data that contradicts their thesis—such as reports of sexual assault in a study about "healing" ethics—they are ethically bound to report it. By omitting these accounts, the study presented a skewed reality of the underground psychedelic movement, effectively silencing victims under the guise of academic research.
Furthermore, the paper’s push for Psychedelic Exceptionalism is now viewed by many bioethicists as a dangerous precedent. The paper argued that the "unique" nature of the psychedelic experience requires a revision of therapist accountability. Critics, including those at the Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School, have argued that this logic is often used to shield abusers from the consequences of violating standard professional boundaries.
Official Responses: JHP vs. Fordham University
The path to the Expression of Concern has highlighted a divide between institutional compliance and publication ethics.
Fordham University, where Brennan conducted this research for his doctorate, conducted an internal investigation that concluded in late 2025. The university determined the matter "closed," stating that they found no evidence of "research misconduct" as defined by their narrow policy (which focuses on fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism). Fordham’s review focused on whether Brennan followed the approved IRB (Institutional Review Board) protocol, rather than the broader ethical implications of what was omitted from the final publication.
In contrast, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology and its publisher, Sage, have taken a more expansive view. Sarah Kamens, Editor-in-Chief of JHP, stated in a recent communication:
"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 (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines."
However, the current Expression of Concern has been criticized for being too vague. According to COPE guidelines, such notices should "state the reasons for the concern." The current JHP notice lacks specific details regarding the allegations of omitted abuse, and the link to the notice is buried within a sub-menu on the article’s landing page, potentially limiting its visibility to search engines and AI databases.
Implications for the Future of Psychedelic Science
The Brennan case is a "canary in the coal mine" for the psychedelic industry. As billions of dollars flow into psychedelic startups and clinical trials, the integrity of the underlying research is paramount. If peer-reviewed journals are seen as "vouching" for unethical practices, the credibility of the entire field is at risk.
The move toward an Expression of Concern suggests that the scientific community is beginning to prioritize patient safety and data integrity over the "hype" of the psychedelic renaissance. It highlights the necessity for:
- Stricter Disclosure Requirements: Researchers must disclose not just financial ties, but "lineage" ties in fields where mentorship is a primary form of training.
- Accountability for Omission: Academic journals must treat the systematic omission of "inconvenient" data with the same severity as the fabrication of data.
- Dismantling Exceptionalism: The idea that "psychedelics change the rules" of ethics is being replaced by a demand for more oversight, not less, given the extreme vulnerability of patients in altered states of consciousness.
While Fordham University may consider the technical file on William Brennan closed, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology has signaled that the ethical file remains very much open. The eventual decision—whether to retract the paper or allow it to stand with further corrections—will likely serve as a landmark precedent for the ethics of psychedelic research for years to come. For the victims of abuse whose voices were allegedly scrubbed from the record, the Expression of Concern is a belated but necessary step toward a science that refuses to remain silent.
