The problem is that their conclusion is not going to be read as “wow, it’s the trip that helps more than just the chemical.” Instead it’ll be read as “well I guess this chemical doesn’t work at all.”
The notion that the trip is the therapeutic element seems oddly frightening or threatening to a lot of people.
… Or at least it’s not what they’re looking for. The quest is for a pill that works deterministically without any need to involve consciousness.
>The notion that the trip is the therapeutic element seems oddly frightening or threatening to a lot of people.
The result of years of "altered state of mind" anti-drug propaganda. There is a significant perception that "altering your state of mind" is immoral (even though we do that every day, all day, and in fact even some foods can "alter your state of mind"). If cannabis could actually cure cancer just by smoking it, there are some people who would respond "well now we need to take the 'high' out of it, because getting 'high' is wrong". These type of people would never accept that the "high" might be the actual mechanism of psychological action, especially with psychedelics and dissociatives, where the user probably won't be able to interact with what passes for objective reality.
For example, DMT is very useful for, among other things, learning more about life and death. If the beliefs are correct, and DMT is released in the brain at the point of death, then DMT itself could be good preparation for the weirdness that happens at and before death (like Alzheimer's or dementia). Taking the "trip" out of DMT would make it completely useless.
'There is a significant perception that "altering your state of mind" is immoral '
This is probably a straw man. The immoral part comes from some percentage of the trippers ending up doing things like climbing naked up power lines to steal the copper for future trips.
It's a question of whether society should tolerate the % damage that occurs versus the % high it gives those not participating in the damage.
That's an issue of set and setting, and of proper education. Also, what in the world scenario have you put forth? Who is "climbing naked up power lines to steal the copper for future trips"? I've never heard that one in all the years of propaganda I've heard (like the old canard about someone taking LSD and believing after the trip that they're an orange).
> How is people misinterpreting the result that way a fair criticism of their work?
Part of it comes down to overall scientific responsibility and being careful about defining the scope of the claims and conclusions. I haven't seen the final paper here, but if the Conclusions section says "This research indicates that ketamine given while patients are already sedated with general anesthesia doesn't not appear to provide a benefit for patients suffering from depression." then that's great.
If their Conclusions section says "By isolating ketamine-the-substance from the ketamine trip by administering the substance while the patient is under general anesthesia, this work demonstrates that there is nothing inherently anti-depressant about ketamine and that ketamine treatment for anti-depression is no better than placebo.", that's going to potentially have a huge ripple effect.
Throughout this thread there's a fair bit of discussion about "the trip is the treatment". The first conclusion leaves a number of other lines of inquiry open for exploration. The second conclusion opens the door for funding agencies and physicians to put an end to additional research and terminating treatments that are potentially effective.
Scientific communication absolutely must be very careful with the breadth of the claims and state them loudly and explicitly. While journal and conference proceedings have historically been generally only consumed by other practitioners of a field, now that everything is online and accessible to the general public there is definitely an increased burden for clear communication with explicit, conservative, narrow unless otherwise warranted conclusions.
