Six months after a high-profile report from Mad in America called for the formal retraction of a 2021 study on psychedelic therapy, the academic community is facing a reckoning. On March 12, 2026, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology (JHP) issued a formal "Expression of Concern" regarding the paper titled "A Qualitative Exploration of Relational Ethical Challenges and Practices in Psychedelic Healing."
The move signals a significant shift in the journal’s stance, acknowledging that the reliability of the research—led by William Brennan and co-authored by M. Jackson, K. MacLean, and J. Ponterotto—is now under active investigation. This development is not merely a technicality of academic publishing; it sits at the heart of a broader debate regarding the safety, ethics, and "exceptionalism" that have come to define the modern psychedelic renaissance.
The Core Controversy: Omissions and Allegations of Abuse
The Brennan paper, published in 2021, was originally presented as a pioneering qualitative study into the ethical nuances of "underground" psychedelic healing. However, the study soon became a lightning rod for criticism. The primary allegation against the paper is one of the most serious in qualitative research: the selective omission of data that contradicted its narrative.
According to reports by Mad in America, the study omitted interview data that detailed accounts of sexual abuse. By filtering out these voices, critics argue the paper engaged in "ethics washing"—creating a sanitized version of psychedelic therapy that prioritized the "healing potential" of the substances over the safety and human rights of the participants.
The paper’s lead author, William Brennan, was a student of Aharon Grossbard, a prominent figure in the psychedelic training world. Grossbard and his wife, Francoise Bourzat, have been the subjects of numerous allegations of sexual misconduct and boundary violations. Critics allege that Brennan’s research subjects were largely drawn from the Grossbard/Bourzat student body, creating a profound conflict of interest. Rather than an objective exploration of ethics, the paper appeared to be a defense of a specific, controversial methodology practiced by Brennan’s mentors.
The Concept of "Psychedelic Exceptionalism"
At the center of the retraction case is the critique of "psychedelic exceptionalism." This is the belief that psychedelic substances possess such extraordinary healing properties that traditional ethical boundaries—such as those governing therapist-client physical contact or romantic involvement—should be loosened or revised.
The Brennan paper suggested that psychedelics required a "new" ethical framework, one that dispensed with established mechanisms for therapist accountability. Critics argue that JHP, by publishing the paper, effectively vouched for this dangerous ideology, potentially providing academic cover for abusive practices within the semi-underground psychedelic community.
A Chronology of the Dispute (2021–2026)
The timeline of this controversy reveals a tortuous path toward institutional accountability, marked by disclosures, disavowals, and evolving editorial responses.
- September 16, 2021: JHP publishes the original Brennan et al. paper. It is initially hailed as an important contribution to the ethics of psychedelic therapy.
- September 25, 2021: Mad in America publishes an exposé detailing allegations of abuse by Aharon Grossbard and Francoise Bourzat.
- October 4, 2021: Under mounting pressure, Brennan publishes a "Disclosure of Positionality" on ResearchGate. He admits Grossbard was his mentor and that many of his interviewees were Grossbard’s students. Crucially, he warns readers to look for bias in his results.
- December 6, 2021: JHP publishes an official "Addendum" to the paper. However, this version omits Brennan’s original warning to readers about bias, a move critics called a dilution of the disclosure.
- May 2022: In a stunning turn, Brennan himself posts on ResearchGate, disavowing his research as not "inherently valid." He removes his Fordham dissertation from public view to prevent it from "serving as supportive literature for dubious or abusive practices."
- February 27, 2025: Formal complaints are filed with JHP Editor Sarah Kamens and Sage Publications, demanding a full retraction.
- May 27, 2025: Editor Sarah Kamens responds, stating she will publish an "Editor’s Note" acknowledging that some practices in the paper are disallowed by standard mental health guidelines.
- September 13, 2025: Mad in America publishes a comprehensive report titled "The Case for Retraction," detailing how the study omitted interviews involving sexual abuse.
- January 5, 2026: The corporate landscape shifts as Cybin Inc. (a company with previous ties to the study’s authors) rebrands to Helus Pharma, distancing itself from the word "psychedelic" in favor of "novel serotonergic agonists."
- March 12, 2026: JHP officially publishes the "Expression of Concern."
Supporting Data: The Failure of Institutional Oversight
One of the most complex layers of this story involves Fordham University, where Brennan conducted his doctoral research. Last year, Fordham concluded its own investigation, stating it "considers the matter to be closed."
However, the university’s investigation was remarkably narrow. It focused solely on whether Brennan complied with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol and whether there was "research misconduct" as defined by the university—specifically fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
The university did not address the broader ethical failure of omitting abuse accounts or the ideological bias of the paper. This highlights a significant gap in academic oversight: a study can follow the technical "rules" of an IRB while still being fundamentally misleading and ethically compromised. The retraction case currently being weighed by JHP and Sage Research Integrity focuses on these broader issues that fell outside Fordham’s limited scope.
Methodological Red Flags
The case for retraction is bolstered by Brennan’s own admission in 2022. When a lead author publicly states that their data should not be used as supportive literature, it usually triggers an immediate academic review. In this case, the delay between Brennan’s disavowal and the journal’s "Expression of Concern" has spanned nearly four years, during which time the paper remained in the literature as a "valid" source for other researchers.
Official Responses and Editorial Integrity
The Journal of Humanistic Psychology is now working in tandem with the Sage Research Integrity team to resolve the matter. In an email to Mad in America, Editor-in-Chief Sarah Kamens emphasized the journal’s commitment to following international standards.
"We continue to investigate and address the case," Kamens stated. "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, industry best practice, and the American Psychological Association ethical principles and code."
Despite these assurances, the current "Expression of Concern" (EOC) has faced criticism for its lack of transparency. According to COPE guidelines, an EOC should:
- State the specific reasons for the concern.
- Be easily discoverable and clearly linked to the original article.
Currently, the JHP notice is tucked away in a sub-menu titled "View correction/original article/reply article." Without a clear, prominent "warning label," downstream services—such as search engines, AI models, and bibliometric databases—may continue to index the study as reliable. Critics argue that until JHP remedies these deficiencies, the EOC serves as a quiet internal note rather than a public safeguard.
Implications for the Psychedelic Renaissance
The investigation into the Brennan paper is a "canary in the coal mine" for the psychedelic industry. As venture capital pours into the field and "novel serotonergic agonists" move toward FDA approval, the pressure to present psychedelics as a risk-free miracle cure is immense.
The Danger of "Ethics Washing"
This case illustrates how academic journals can inadvertently become tools for "ethics washing." By providing a platform for research that minimizes or omits reports of harm, journals can help create a false consensus that a field is safer than it actually is. In the underground and semi-underground world of psychedelic therapy, where there is no licensing board or state oversight, academic integrity is the only line of defense for vulnerable clients.
A Call for Rigor
The move by JHP to issue an Expression of Concern is a step toward accountability, but it also highlights the "tortuous" process required to correct the scientific record. It suggests that the "psychedelic renaissance" must outgrow its phase of exceptionalism and submit to the same rigorous ethical and methodological standards as any other branch of medicine or psychology.
As the investigation continues, the psychedelic community and the academic world at large await a final decision. Whether the paper is ultimately retracted or remains in the literature with a permanent warning, the case has already exposed a fundamental truth: in the search for healing, the omission of the victim’s voice is the greatest ethical failure of all.
