The relationship Harvard holds with psychedelics is long, convoluted, and until recently, static in its progression. Many are familiar with psychedelics’ fall to social damnation during the ’60s, less are familiar with how institutions like Harvard were involved, and less still are familiar with academia’s attitude towards these compounds before the research ceased.
When the history of psychedelics at Harvard is recited, it is often oversaturated with retellings of Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert’s infamous Psilocybin Project. During its time, the Harvard Psilocybin Project was likely the most high-profile, public-facing psychedelic research project that had ever been undertaken. But just two years later, the project was terminated – permanently tainting not just the public, but also academia’s perception of the substances. However, in the years before controversy halted psychedelic research, it was a different story.
Richard Evans Schultes, a name familiar for those who know their share of psychedelics history, is an unsung hero of the early psychedelics game. Coming from humble means in East Boston, Schultes attended Harvard on a full scholarship in 1933. He went on to become a wildly important ethnobotanist – one who studies the properties of unique plant species by learning from the indigenous peoples who cultivate them. He wrote his thesis on the spiritual use of the peyote cactus among the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma and kept up this inquiry on psychoactive plants throughout his career. Schultes’ contributions to Harvard, ethnobotany, and the greater medical field are vast and not yet fully appreciated. But his story is distinctly valuable for informing contemporary dialogues as the future of psychedelics remains unclear.
Second Wave
The second wave of psychedelic research, which the current moment falls into, poses an important question for institutions like Harvard, “How do we want to proceed?” It’s a question that has been shrouded with irrelevancy and disagreement since the late ’60s. While public dismay and academic rejection posed a hiatus on psychedelic research, it did not terminate the possibility of carrying out studies with government approval. Over time discoveries were made, tireless disciples toiled on spreading awareness, and research methodology improved. Eventually, as more studies accumulated, all flaunting solid standards and positive results, an undercurrent of excitement started to flow. As the academic world caught on, it became clear science was lagging behind the experience and knowledge of the millions of people all throughout history who have used psychedelics. It is this recounting of the personal explorations and potentials which has time and again sparked the passion of the researchers.
In the last decade, the country has seen the slow resurgence play out as hospitals and universities open up psychedelic research centers. Recently, Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) opened the new Center for the Neuroscience of Psychedelics to study the substances’ effect on the brain. The Independent spoke with the center’s scientific director of chemical neurobiology, Dr. Stephen J. Haggarty on the importance of the center’s opening. About which he says, “as short as a few years ago, I would’ve never imagined MGH and Harvard, in general, would have as much interest as there is.” Dr. Haggarty cites that many of those taking up an interest in psychedelic research are doing so because they are being “driven in this direction because there is a need for new medicines in psychopharmacology.”
This is one of the promises of psychedelics that researchers are working to understand and enact – the ability to heal patients who are left untreated with current tools. And so far, the results of drug-assisted psychotherapy studies have more than surpassed the effectiveness of any other treatment option. For those willing to listen the evidence is already here: psychedelics are the future of psychiatric treatment. Additionally, psychedelics are associated with a number of other health and lifestyle benefits – such as neuroplasticity in adulthood, and greater life satisfaction. With all these benefits in mind, it is surprising that the university doesn’t invest in this research to a greater extent.
Generational Gap
To try and understand this hesitation, The Independent spoke with Harvard Psychology graduate student Grant Jones. Jones is studying the links between mental health outcomes and psychedelics using large-scale epidemiological surveys. It’s not that Jones is opposed to clinical research, but as of now, that approach is unavailable as it is often prohibitively hard to get funding for psychedelic studies. Even at the new Harvard and MGH psychedelic center, their main source of funding is philanthropy. Psychedelic research is predominantly reliant on private funding, hence why advancement in the field is slow. In discussing the role research has in the movement, Grant believes research is fundamental to ensuring people begin taking these medicines seriously. He went on to note that “research can help to hasten [acceptance of psychedelics]. It needs to hasten because there’s a lot of people suffering needlessly when these really profound and potentially powerful treatments could help.”
Part of understanding the limited investment in this field is understanding the generation gap in this field. There are a couple of factors at play here, on which Harvard undergraduate Nick Ige shared his thoughts on the importance of time periods. For the Baby Boomer generation, they were kids or young adults when the demonization and criminalization of psychedelics happened. For Gen Z, they were the first generation who grew up with the internet fully integrated into their lives – referencing the fact that today’s youth have greater informational access than anyone before them.
This age-related difference is illustrated clearly with polling results. A 2021 Harris poll found that a majority of Americans aged 18-29 agree that psychedelic substances have medical uses. For those over 30 years old, the majority answer was a resounding no. It seems youth are not only more accepting and knowledgeable about psychedelics, but the total amount of young adults who embrace these substances is quickly increasing. This can be seen even on Harvard’s campus.
Recently, The Independent ran the annual counter-culture survey. In it, students were polled on which drugs they’ve tried. Focusing specifically on psychedelics, 11% have tried LSD, 9% for MDMA, 23% for psilocybin mushrooms, and 6% for Ketamine. Particularly surprising was not the near quarter of respondents with psilocybin experience, but how drastically that number had risen. Just five years ago, when students were polled that same question, those with psilocybin experience amounted to a comparatively small 8%.
This rift between youth and older generations’ attitudes is something Dr. Haggarty mentioned while commenting on the road ahead for psychedelics. He mentioned that in the eyes of the university, the continuation of psychedelic research is a long-term game – meaning Harvard, as an institution, feels no rush to carry out research. Dr. Haggarty notes the tension one might feel when caught between understanding the gravity of the situation and being unable to make any progress. That’s a feeling many students find themselves having in this era when psychedelics are no longer taboo on campus, but they are still absent.
Looking Forward
To gauge how students’ feelings on the matter, The Independent spoke with Yana Lazarova-Weng and Max Ingersoll, co-presidents of the Harvard Psychedelic Club. On the topic of fostering interest, they thoughtfully remind that different people could have different preferences for what legitimizes something they learn – in this case, psychedelics. That is the reason the club hosts such a wide array of events, from art shows to scientific panels so that everyone can find an avenue they can approach from. And it is definitely working, both Lazarova-Weng and Ingersoll shared stories of classmates joining the club after realizing the true depth of the club and thanking them for creating a judgment-free, educational space on campus.
Though the Harvard Psychedelics Club was relatively unknown before Lazarova-Weng and Ingersoll took leadership, it had existed since 2019. The fact that it lay unknown for so long is symptomatic of a wider diagnosis one could give Harvard – indecisiveness. The reason Schultes was such a great scientist is that he was respectful, humble, and above all passionate. He worked alongside experts from all the varying departments, making his work as interdisciplinary as it could be. His work has stood the test of time and his determination shows, but at the end of the day Schultes wouldn’t have accomplished what he did were it not for the support Harvard gave him throughout his life. Dr. Haggarty believes Schultes’ story is a powerful reminder for Harvard to consider their potential and role in the second wave of research.
In conversation, Lazarova-Weng mentioned that “there will always be open- and close-minded people, but the open-minded ones are the ones who are the catalysts for growth.” Dr. Haggarty said something similar, that visionary, catalyzing research is possible, but students and faculty alike have to be invested. When considering the state of psychedelics at Harvard, and what happens from here, these two quotes ring with confidence.