Mapping an Agenda for Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy Research in Patients with Serious Illness.

Background: With support from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, we convened researchers representing palliative care, psychosocial oncology, spiritual care, oncology, and psychedelic-assisted therapies. We aimed to define priorities and envision an agenda for future research on psychedelic-assisted therapies in patients with serious illness. Over two days in January 2020, participants engaged in an iterative series of reflective exercises that elicited their attitude and perspectives on scientific opportunities for this research. Objectives: The aim of the study is to identify themes that shape priorities and an agenda for research on psychedelic-assisted therapy for those affected by serious illness. Methods: We collected data through preconference interviews, audio recordings, flip charts, and sticky notes. We applied thematic qualitative analysis to elucidate key themes. Results: We identified seven key opportunities to advance the field of psychedelic-assisted therapies in serious illness care. Four opportunities were related to the science and design of psychedelic-assisted therapies: clarifying indications; developing and refining therapeutic protocols; investigating the impact of set and setting on therapeutic outcomes; and understanding the mechanisms of action. The other three pertained to institutional and societal drivers to support optimal and responsible research: education and certification for therapists; regulations and funding; and diversity and inclusion. Additionally, participants suggested epistemological limitations of the medical model to understand the potential value and therapeutic use of psychedelics. Conclusions: Medicine and society are witnessing a resurgence of interest in the effects and applications of psychedelic-assisted therapies in a wide range of settings. This article suggests key opportunities for research in psychedelic-assisted therapies for those affected by serious illness.

The Power of Analogies for Imagining and Governing Emerging Technologies.

The emergence of new technologies regularly involves comparisons with previous innovations. For instance, analogies with asbestos and genetically modified organisms have played a crucial role in the early societal debate about nanotechnology. This article explores the power of analogies in such debates and how they could be effectively and responsibly employed for imagining and governing emerging technologies in general and nanotechnology in particular. First, the concept of analogical imagination is developed to capture the explorative and anticipatory potential of analogies. Yet analogies do not simply stimulate imagination, they also restrict it by framing emerging technologies in specific ways. Thus, second, the article argues that tracing the rhetorical and persuasive power of analogical arguments is essential for understanding how analogies are constructed to legitimise assessments, funding policies, and governance approaches. Third, the article addresses factors that account for the persuasiveness of analogies in debates about emerging technologies. The article concludes with reflections on how analogical imagination and an enhanced analogical sensibility for framing and persuasive effects can foster responsible research and innovation (RRI).

Nanotechnology is like The rhetorical roles of analogies in public engagement.

Lay people are increasingly invited to deliberate on emerging technologies in public engagement settings. Analogies appear frequently in these contexts and are commonly understood as means of making sense of and forming an opinion on emerging technologies. This article provides an alternative perspective, which conceptualizes analogies as rhetorical devices employed to achieve specific functions. A repertoire of rhetorical roles is traced in four public engagement settings on nanotechnology: (1) analogies suggesting acceptance/rejection of specific nano-applications, (2) anticipatory and alerting analogies constructed to plausibilize and prevent futures, (3) killer analogies closing debate and arguments, and (4) "nano is not like nano" moves that distinguish between application domains. Each role points to specific dimensions and tensions of public engagement processes. Overall, the findings reveal that lay people use analogies to make arguments and enforce framings rather than to just make sense of nanotechnology, which refutes the assumption of a public opinion deficit.