Once the cat’s out of the bag, there’s little precedent for it going all the way back in
A recent New York Times article highlighted tensions in the psychedelic movement that echo something I see across U.S. politics: some voices on the fringes seem more focused on blocking progress entirely than on offering, influencing, or even imagining a better path forward.
The article centers on Psymposia, a nonprofit and self-described watchdog group that claims to provide critical oversight of the psychedelic field. It describes how the group may have undermined the recent FDA-reviewed MDMA-assisted therapy trial—a portrayal that unsurprisingly sparked backlash. But what struck me most wasn’t the article itself; it was the broader question it raised: Is Psymposia holding the movement accountable or are they trying to bring it to a grinding halt?
This dynamic felt familiar—not just in the psychedelic space, but in our broader political landscape. Especially in progressive circles, there’s often a vocal subset that seems more invested in tearing down imperfect progress than in shaping what comes next. It’s the urge to burn it all down in hopes of a clean start, even when a clean start isn’t on the table. And while that frustration is understandable—especially in broken systems—we can’t afford to ignore the reality we’re in. Psychedelics, already weighed down by stigma, legal barriers, and cultural fear, don’t have the luxury of purity politics. We don’t get to reboot the system from scratch. What we do get is a rare moment of momentum—and bad-faith opposition doesn’t just slow it down, it hands ammunition to the people who’ve always wanted to stop it.
To be clear: rigorous critique is essential. Accountability matters. But there’s a difference between constructive skepticism and entrenched denialism. Mission-driven orgs in the psychedelic space, like MAPS and Lykos, need communication strategies that name that difference—and find ways to work around it.
That’s where adversarial collaboration could help.
Strategic communication needs to move off the page and into the room: structured debates, simulations, or direct outreach across ideological divides. Not to win over every critic, but to build messaging that can withstand real-world friction. If we anticipate opposition and lead with clarity, it becomes easier to spot who’s engaging in good faith and who’s simply trying to sabotage.
The goal isn’t to silence dissent. It’s to sharpen the message, anticipate the backlash, and keep the work moving forward. That way, those who refuse to engage with integrity become easier to recognize—not as whistleblowers, but as bad-faith actors.
In today’s climate, strong communications and public-facing strategy aren’t just helpful; they’re essential to keeping progress on track.
