Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Previous research raises concern that conservative institutional review board (IRB) approaches regarding stigmatized issues and vulnerable groups could similarly arise as an impediment to research with psychedelic drugs. We interviewed 20 US researchers who had been a principal investigator on at least one research protocol involving psychedelics about their experiences with IRB oversight and perspectives regarding what IRBs need to know. Respondents reported that their IRBs raised concern and asked questions about participant safety, consent, legal issues, and data security and confidentiality, typical domains for IRB consideration. They also mentioned several IRB knowledge gaps or misunderstandings about psychedelics, primarily about risks and safety, while emphasizing the importance of IRBs' understanding of psychedelic drug effects. Despite IRB concerns and misunderstandings, all study respondents ultimately reported positive or neutral current experiences with IRBs reviewing their protocols for research with psychedelics, which they often attributed to cultivating strong IRB relationships and helping IRBs achieve adequate knowledge about these types of studies. Although investigators in our study did not perceive their IRBs to be a significant barrier to research with psychedelics, less experienced investigators and IRBs may face different outcomes. As research with psychedelics continues to increase, both researchers and IRBs should be responsive to continued scientific developments and emergent best practices.
Source: Ethics & Human Research
DOI: 10.1002/eahr.70033
Language: English
Topic: Ethics in Clinical Research
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $3,240
OpenAlex ID: W7168154478