In a significant procedural milestone for the field of psychedelic research, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology (JHP) has formally issued an "Expression of Concern" regarding a 2021 paper that critics allege "ethics-washed" systemic abuse within the psychedelic therapy community. The move, announced on March 12, 2026, signals that the journal’s earlier attempts to address the controversy via editorial notes and addendums may no longer be sufficient to protect the integrity of the scientific record.
The paper in question, "A Qualitative Exploration of Relational Ethical Challenges and Practices in Psychedelic Healing," authored by William Brennan and colleagues, has been the subject of a relentless campaign for retraction led by whistleblowers and investigative journalists at Mad in America. The investigation centers on allegations that the study omitted critical testimony regarding sexual abuse and was authored by a researcher with undisclosed, deep-seated ties to the very practitioners accused of that misconduct.
The Core Controversy: Omissions and "Psychedelic Exceptionalism"
At the heart of the dispute is the reliability of Brennan’s qualitative data. The 2021 study purported to explore the unique ethical landscape of "underground" psychedelic healing—a world where traditional clinical boundaries are often blurred. However, subsequent reports by Mad in America and other outlets revealed a darker subtext. Critics argue the paper served as a vehicle for "psychedelic exceptionalism"—the controversial theory that because psychedelics induce "extraordinary healing," therapists should be exempt from standard ethical boundaries and accountability mechanisms.
More damagingly, the study is alleged to have suppressed evidence. Investigations suggest that Brennan’s research interviews included accounts of sexual abuse perpetrated by prominent trainers, yet these accounts were omitted from the final published article. By sanitizing the data, the paper arguably provided academic cover for abusive practices, framing boundary violations as "relational challenges" rather than ethical failures or criminal acts.
The "Expression of Concern" acts as a formal warning to the global research community. It serves as a "warning label" on the digital version of the article, alerting readers that the data’s reliability is currently under investigation and should not be cited or utilized without extreme caution.
A Tortuous History: A Chronology of the Brennan Paper
The path from publication to the current "Expression of Concern" has been marked by a series of disclosures, disavowals, and institutional reviews spanning nearly five years.
- September 16, 2021: JHP publishes the original paper by Brennan, Jackson, MacLean, and Ponterotto. The study is initially framed as a pioneering look at the ethics of the psychedelic underground.
- September 25, 2021: Mad in America publishes an exposé titled "Ending the Silence on Psychedelic Therapy Abuse," detailing allegations of sexual misconduct by Aharon Grossbard and Francoise Bourzat, two titans of the psychedelic training world.
- October 4, 2021: Facing mounting pressure, Brennan publishes a "Disclosure of Positionality" on ResearchGate. He admits that Grossbard was his mentor and that many of his research subjects were Grossbard’s students. He advises "careful readers" to look for bias in his results.
- November 2021: Investigative reports from Inverse and New York Magazine corroborate the abuse allegations against Grossbard and Bourzat, linking their "training" methods to a culture of silence and manipulation.
- December 6, 2021: JHP publishes Brennan’s disclosure as an official "Addendum." Crucially, the version published in the journal omits Brennan’s original warning to readers to be alert for bias.
- May 2022: In a stunning turn, Brennan himself posts on ResearchGate, disavowing his own research. He states the data is not "inherently valid" and removes his Fordham University dissertation from public view to prevent it from being used to support "dubious or abusive practices."
- February – May 2025: Formal calls for retraction are submitted to JHP and Sage Publications. Editor Sarah Kamens responds by adding an "Editor’s Note" to the article, stating that some practices described in the paper are "explicitly disallowed" by standard mental health ethics.
- September 13, 2025: Mad in America publishes a comprehensive report, "The Case for Retraction," detailing how the study omitted interviews that specifically told of sexual abuse.
- March 12, 2026: JHP issues the formal "Expression of Concern," confirming that an investigation into the paper’s reliability is ongoing.
Supporting Data: Why Retraction is Being Demanded
The case for a full retraction rests on three pillars: research misconduct, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and the failure of the peer-review process to catch "ethics-washing."
1. Data Suppression and Falsification
Qualitative research relies on the honest representation of participant voices. If a researcher interviews subjects about "ethical challenges" and those subjects describe sexual assault, the omission of such data in favor of a narrative about "innovative boundary work" constitutes a fundamental distortion of the truth. Critics argue that by omitting reports of abuse, the paper effectively falsified the ethical landscape of the community it studied.
2. Researcher Positionality and Bias
The lead author, William Brennan, was not a neutral observer. As a student and protégé of Aharon Grossbard, his career and social standing were inextricably linked to the reputation of the trainers he was studying. The fact that the study’s participants were largely drawn from the same "inner circle" created an echo chamber that favored the trainers’ narrative over the safety of clients.
3. The "Exceptionalism" Trap
The paper argued that the "mystical" nature of psychedelic experiences requires a "re-envisioning" of ethics. This argument is now viewed by many bioethicists as a dangerous precedent. By suggesting that traditional therapist-client boundaries are "outdated" for psychedelics, the paper provided a pseudo-intellectual justification for the very behaviors that lead to exploitation.
Official Responses: Journals vs. Universities
The response from institutional bodies has been divided, highlighting the differing standards for "research misconduct" and "publication ethics."
Fordham University’s Stance:
Fordham University, where Brennan completed the research as part of his doctoral work, conducted an internal review and declared the matter "closed" in late 2025. However, Fordham’s investigation was limited to the narrow legal definition of research misconduct: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism." Because Brennan followed his approved Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol at the time, the university found no technical violation, despite the author’s own later disavowal of the data’s validity.
The Journal’s Perspective:
JHP Editor-in-Chief Sarah Kamens has taken a more cautious and rigorous approach. In a recent statement, Kamens emphasized that JHP and Sage Research Integrity are working in collaboration to resolve the case according to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.
"We take all publication ethics concerns very seriously," Kamens stated. "We have been following up with the relevant parties in order to resolve this matter and we will inform you as soon as we can when a final decision has been made."
The issuance of the "Expression of Concern" suggests that the journal acknowledges the concerns go beyond mere "positionality" and strike at the heart of the paper’s scientific integrity.
Implications: A Warning for the "Psychedelic Renaissance"
The fallout from the Brennan paper comes at a precarious time for the psychedelic movement. As companies like the recently rebranded Helus Pharma (formerly Cybin Inc.) move toward medicalization, the industry is desperate to distance itself from the "Wild West" image of the underground.
The Failure of Oversight
The Brennan case exposes a systemic failure in the peer-review process. When a paper promotes "exceptionalism," reviewers who are themselves proponents of the psychedelic movement may fail to apply the necessary skepticism. This creates a "halo effect" where abusive practices are rebranded as "healing modalities."
The Role of COPE Guidelines
Observers have noted that JHP’s "Expression of Concern," while a step forward, currently falls short of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) best practices. Currently, the EoC does not explicitly state the reasons for the concern on its face, nor is it easily discoverable on the article’s landing page without navigating sub-menus. For an EoC to protect the public, it must be prominent and descriptive so that search engines and AI databases can correctly flag the study as "unreliable."
The Human Cost
Beyond the academic debate lies a human reality. When journals publish papers that minimize or omit abuse, they contribute to a culture where victims are gaslit and perpetrators are protected by "science." The retraction of the Brennan paper would not just be a correction of the academic record; it would be a symbolic victory for those who have suffered in the shadows of the psychedelic "healing" world.
As the investigation continues, the "Expression of Concern" stands as a stark reminder that in the rush to embrace the therapeutic potential of psychedelics, the fundamental principles of ethics and accountability cannot be left behind. The scientific community is now watching to see if JHP will take the final step of retraction, or if the "warning label" will be the only legacy of a study that its own author no longer stands behind.
