By Dr. Alaina M. Jaster
The DEA hearing to challenge the scheduling of two phenethylamine psychedelics, DOI and DOC, began on what many would deem an ordinary Tuesday morning. For one group of steadfast individuals, this morning would be the start of a seven-day hearing that could have substantial impacts on the future of drug scheduling.
These individuals came from a variety of scientific and personal backgrounds, with many of them taking time from their work schedules or vacations to testify as expert witnesses in this hearing. Their main purpose: to demonstrate through scientific evidence and expert opinion that DOI and DOC do not have high abuse potential and their scheduling would harm research and, therefore, public health as a whole.
While coverage of the week’s events has been published (see, for example, Dispatch From the DEA: DOI and DOC on Trial As Scientists Challenge Psychedelic Scheduling Bid), we would be remiss not to feature the people who made this happen and get their final thoughts on the experience as a whole. Of note, this article includes only those who made it into the proceedings or were party signatories, but there were many others that were slated to testify but did not end up fitting in with the schedule.
The Scientists
While Tanner Anderson did not get to officially testify, he was a party signatory on the filing request for hearing and provided crucial insights in the arguments presented.
Jaster: Why did you decide to testify?
Anderson: I decided to be a part of this effort to take on the DEA around a year ago. I remembered the first time DOI and DOC almost became scheduled a couple years ago and followed along the effort from student researchers on the sidelines. I found that really inspiring since I am also a PhD student studying psychedelics and using DOI in my research every day. When I heard the DEA was trying again to ban these promising research tools, I immediately reached out and asked to help this time around. The rest is history, we met every week and worked diligently on our case for a year leading up to the November hearing.
Jaster: What was your favorite or least favorite aspect of the hearing?
Anderson: In regard to the hearing itself, my favorite moment was attorney Robert Rush’s closing statement. After spending a week being logical, stoic, and filled to the brim with scientific evidence, he thought it was the perfect time to bring some emotion to the courtroom and tell us how he truly felt. Chills moved through the room as he spoke to the real life harm that archaic US drug policy has caused and demanded the government do what is right.
Dr. Lindsay P. Cameron has been designated an expert witness in “neuropsychiatric disorders” and was able to testify about the lack of abuse potential of psychedelics and their utility for potentially treating a variety of mental health conditions.
Jaster: What is your major takeaway from the experience?
Cameron: I think drug scheduling without looking at the scientific facts is shocking. Many of the original scheduled compounds from the 1970s Controlled Substance Act were submitted on extremely minimal evidence, if any. Not only that, but this was over 50 years ago now, and we have much more modern ways of understanding and assessing an incredible spectrum of drugs. For the DEA to base their decisions solely on similarity to already-scheduled compounds (not necessarily safety or tests that explicitly test addictive liability)— when the already-scheduled compounds don’t even have sufficient or modern data—is outdated and blatantly unscientific. The DEA’s approach to drug scheduling needs to be revisited.
I find it incredibly sad that taxpayer money is being spent trying to schedule DOI instead of helping with the fentanyl crisis. The opioid epidemic affects millions and desperately needs more governmental support.
Dr. Harrison Elder has been designated an expert witness in “the study of respiratory depression and substance use disorders, specifically the use of monoamines, including psychedelics, as modulators of respiratory depression” and was able to testify about the lack of evidence on the scope, severity and patterns of abuse related to DOI and DOC.
Jaster: Why did you decide to testify?
Elder: My decision to testify was hardly a decision at all, it was something I felt I had to do to fulfill my mission as an evidenced-based scientist. One of my original core motivations for pursuing a doctorate in pharmacology to research psychoactive substances was to hopefully help change the draconian and nonsensical drug laws in this country through presenting scientific research and fact-based arguments.
Jaster: What was your favorite or least favorite aspect of the hearing?
Elder: I can easily say that my least favorite part of the hearing was being sequestered from Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and the other scientists who were testifying, which made for a lonely few days! It’s hard to pick out a favorite part of the hearing because it was all very interesting and exciting from beginning to end. But if I had to choose, being recognized by the court as an expert in my field and getting to share my testimony would take the cake.
Joseph Hennessey was a party signatory and able to watch some of the testimony. Unfortunately, he was not qualified as an expert due to him still being in the early stages of his training, but he still was able to briefly share how scheduling DOI and DOC would influence his training.
Jaster: Why did you decide to testify?
Hennessey: I decided to testify because I care deeply about psychedelic research and want to keep it accessible for the next generation of scientists. I was the youngest scientist there and the only witness without a graduate degree, but I felt I needed to make my voice heard because there are many other young scientists out there whose entire scientific career may hinge on the results of this hearing.
Jaster: What was your favorite or least favorite aspect of the hearing?
Hennessey: My favorite part was definitely Robert’s closing argument; I’ll never forget that moment. Originally, Brett had been slated to deliver it but late the night before as we were all huddled around a table, he realized that Robert had been itching to speak his mind for the entirety of the hearing and that this was his chance to do so. He spoke about how he had lost a nephew-in-law to fentanyl overdose, and about the immense potential that research using DOI had to save the lives of those with substance use disorders. He decried, with righteous indignation, the absurdity of the government’s attorneys attacking and belittling our expert scientists with little to no evidence of their own. And finally, he ended by imploring the judge to make not only what he believed was the legally correct decision, but the right one. I had tears in my eyes because it perfectly encapsulated why we were all there, and why we had all fought so hard to make this hearing happen. It was beautiful.
Dr. David Nichols is recognized as one of the foremost experts on the medicinal chemistry of hallucinogens. He has served as an expert witness in multiple cases, in this case was specifically deemed an expert in “structure-activity relationships of psychedelic agents”. During his testimony, Dr. Nichols shared some important insight into the many issues in obtaining schedule I licensure and how scheduling psychedelics has hindered the discovery of psychedelics’ enormous potential to treat a variety of disorders.
Jaster: Why did you decide to testify?
Nichols: I decided to testify because psychedelics, and DOI in particular, now have been recognized to have important clinical applications. Scheduling DOI would have a devastating effect on research in this field because it is currently the most important tool to study 5-HT2A receptors that can be used without the need for a DEA license. Emphasizing this importance, two biotech startup companies have been founded based on findings that DOI has powerful anti-inflammatory properties. Scheduling it would shut off research in this important field to young investigators who may not have the infrastructure or persistence to work through the onerous registration process, which can take up to two years.
Jaster: What surprised you the most about this experience?
Nichols: I was shocked several times when, on providing some answers to the DEA attorney, he objected that I was only recognized as an expert on “structure-activity relationships,” and my answer was outside the scope of his understanding of that term and the extent of my expertise.
Dr. Joseph Palamar was recognized as an expert in “drug use epidemiology” and testified about the data he has gathered through his studies.
Jaster: Why did you decide to testify?
Palamar: Elijah contacted me as he was seeking an expert witness. As I stated during the trial, I personally don’t care whether these DOx compounds are scheduled, but Elijah seemed like a nice kid, so I agreed to help out. I wasn’t in favor of the outcome one way or another, I simply wanted to provide objective information to inform the decision. I have access to a unique variety of epidemiology data so I figured it would be helpful.
Jaster: What was a major takeaway from the experience?
Palamar: In all honesty, I’ve never really had anything against the DEA, and unlike a lot of other academics, I’m not hostile towards law enforcement. I think I mentioned during the trial, I was supposed to be a police officer myself—I even have degrees in criminal justice and forensic psychology and I was an inch away from taking a job with the NYPD back in the day. But I did expect the DEA to have more convincing data available.
Dr. Raul Ramos was not recognized as an expert witness by the court, seemingly due to his lack of publications with psychedelics, despite his over 10 years of work in the field of neuroscience. Despite this, he was still able to fully testify on his knowledge within the novel field of psychedelics and pain as well as describe in detail the process of retaining a Schedule I license at his university.
Jaster: Why did you decide to file and be a part of this effort?
Ramos: DOI is a vitally important research tool, for my work and that of many others. Because of this fact, I decided to fight and work with all my amazing colleagues to maintain DOI’s unscheduled status. I hope that by taking up this fight, we will be able to preserve the larger community’s scientific freedom to explore and innovate.
Jaster: What was your favorite or least favorite aspect of the hearing?
Ramos: From this experience I observed more clearly how science and policy interact. I believe these observations will prove valuable in the future.
Being one of the foremost leading experts in DOI pharmacology, Dr. de la Fuente Revenga testified about its lack of abuse potential and the specific chemical and pharmacological characteristics that make it anti-addictive. Dr. Mario de la Fuente Revenga was deemed an expert in “the study of medicinal chemistry and the neuropharmacology of psychedelics.”
Jaster: What is a major takeaway from the experience?
de la Fuente Revenga: Science can play a significant role in holding the government accountable. The DEA would greatly benefit from honest conversations with scientists across disciplines and the allocation of funds toward research that can streamline their decision-making process and help establish priority areas.
Jaster: What is a favorite or least favorite aspect of the hearing?
de la Fuente Revenga: My favorite part was the great energy from the challengers—people with nothing to gain from the process, motivated solely by their desire to course-correct their government.
Although Dr. Elijah Z. Ullman did not testify, he initiated the filing for hearing, provided crucial organization of witnesses and assisted with the development of scientific arguments for the case.
Jaster: Why did you decide to file and be a part of this effort?
Ullman: As Chair of the Science Policy Committee (SPC) of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, I wanted to use my scientific training to advance pharmacology research policy issues. Since the SPCs founding four years ago, we have held several marijuana-related Hill Days, written policy briefs supporting these bills, advocated for NIH Funding, and trained undergraduates in holding Hill meetings. I filed for the Hearing because DOI and DOC have been the tool of choice for neuroscientists for 50 years without any evidence of abuse, and in fact, some data show the drugs are anti-addictive! The Science Policy Committee filed to ensure that the DEA understands the enormous impact their nonsensical proposed rulemaking would have on research and that it would be disastrous!
Jaster: What is a major takeaway from this experience?
Ullman: One takeaway has been in demonstrating that science and law are a team sport. For the last year, our group of scientists with the SSDP-SPC have been meeting and talking about complicated pharmacology – both behavioral and molecular as well as systems neuroscience. That, combined with two dedicated attorneys who don’t work in biology, brought tons of fresh perspectives together. Each week we learned something new from each other and grew as a team. All of us scientists have indeed learned how to communicate more effectively to many different audiences and how to read and prepare legal documents. The world is rapidly changing, and I think that scientists who can interface with the legal and scientific world are going to be exceptionally valuable and effective in driving the change they and I want to see in the world.
Dr. Jason Younkin was recognized as an expert in “cross-talk between serotonin and dopamine receptors”, and as such testified about his work characterizing psychedelic DOI and how scheduling it would greatly impact his research and trajectory to becoming a full Professor.
Jaster: Why did you decide to testify?
Younkin: I participated because my individual case is a practical example of what will happen to not only junior investigators of psychedelics, but also established PIs needing to use DOI/DOC in new research.
(Editor’s note: In her first draft of this article, Dr. Alaina Jaster did not include herself, despite the central role she has played in challenging the agency’s scheduling of DOI and DOC. After some encouragement, she agreed to be profiled!)
Dr. Jaster has been involved in this effort since 2022 and was a party signatory on the filing. During the hearing she was qualified as an expert witness in “Neuroscience and Substance Use Disorders” and testified about methods to assess abuse potential of psychedelics and other substances.
The Editor: Why did you decide to testify and be a part of the filing?
Jaster: When Dr. Ullman first brought this to me in 2022 I was just going to be a witness testifying in opposition to the DEA filing but when it happened again in 2023, I knew I wanted to be more involved as I had finished my dissertation using DOI and was about to graduate. I knew I would have more time to dedicate to formulating arguments, completing my own 8-factor analysis and helping organize the witnesses. I always joked that if I didn’t get my PhD I would’ve gone to law school, so being able to get firsthand experience in policy and law-making was really an exciting opportunity. It was a bonus that I would get to be at DEA headquarters telling them how they’re wrong.
The Editor: What surprised you the most about this experience?
Jaster: I think I was most surprised about where the government decided to put their efforts and what they thought were “gotcha” moments. For example, during my testimony they pulled out an entire binder that included more than one of my posts on twitter/X and referenced them, but yet didn’t bother to prepare their witness for any contradictory evidence and cross-examination. They also thought that by asking me about my personal views about drug legalization they would somehow discredit me, but instead it allowed us to explore how criminalization personally affects families and human beings.
SSDP and Legal Team
Jaster: Why did you decide to be a part of this effort?
Giorgio: As a representative of SSDP, I joined this effort to shed light on the critical research being conducted on DOI and DOC and to expose attempts to hinder scientific progress. While these compounds may be less widely recognized, they hold significant implications for the psychedelic field, particularly in advancing our understanding of how psychedelics interact with serotonin receptors. It’s equally important for the public to be informed about the DEA’s efforts to wrongly schedule these substances and to recognize that they have the power to voice their perspectives in the decision-making process.
Jaster: What surprised you the most about this experience?
Giorgio: I did not expect the DEA’s scheduling process for DOI and DOC to rely not on scientific data, empirical evidence, or arrest records, but rather on anecdotal reports from internet forums like Reddit and Erowid.
Jaster: Why did you decide to be a part of this effort?
Murti: When Elijah Ullman called me in December of 2023 to let me know that the DEA was once again trying to criminalize DOI and DOC there was no question that we would be involved in the fight again.
Adding them to Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act will essentially shut down critical research and block whole avenues of future scientific inquiry—and to what end? They are not used recreationally. There is no overdose crisis involving DOI and DOC. And, in fact, the research the DEA is attempting to put a stop to could hold the key to ending the opioid overdose epidemic. The work we are putting in to save DOI and DOC is part of a much larger fight.
Jaster: What is a major takeaway from this experience?
Murti: This whole experience has been a masterclass in administrative court law, something that seems to be having an increasingly large impact on drug policy. The last time the DEA held a similar scheduling hearing was in 1986 for MDMA. We quite literally made history. We’ve set some important precedents—I believe this is the first time research harm will ever be considered in a scheduling decision—that will likely play a big role in the upcoming cannabis rescheduling hearing and beyond.
Brett Phelps provided direct examination of several of the expert witnesses for SSDP/Ramos and cross-examination of DEA expert witness and pharmacologist Dr. Theresa Carbonaro.
Jaster: Why did you decide to be a part of this effort?
Phelps: I became a lawyer because I wanted to fight against the injustices of the drug war. This case was an opportunity to make a real difference in something I care deeply about.
Jaster: What was your favorite or least favorite aspect of the hearing?
Phelps: My favorite thing about this process was getting to work with and learn from so many incredible people. Seeing everyone come together to make this happen was a really special experience. This is the most fun I’ve ever had as a lawyer.
Robert Rush provided both the opening and closing statements of the SSDP/Ramos case, as well as provided direct examination of SSDP/Ramos witnesses.
Jaster: Why did you decide to be a part of this effort?
Rush: I decided to take on this fight because I recognized the impact that adding these essential research tools to Schedule I would have. Worried that no one else would stand up and try to stop this, I reached out to my network, looking for those in the research community who might be impacted. Graham Pechenik put me in touch with Raul. I was happy to discover that SSDP had also requested a hearing.
Jaster: What was your favorite or least favorite aspect of the hearing?
Rush: My least favorite thing was watching the government’s attorneys try to bully our researchers during testimony. My favorite part was watching our researchers have none of it and stand their ground.
The Conclusion… for Now
Within 24 hours of the hearing adjournment, the team—give or take a few—assembled online to debrief. During this online meeting, Dr. Ullman, Phelps and Rush expressed their immense gratitude to the scientists who took time from their day to be here for this cause. The major takeaway as summarized by the council, “We made a pretty damn reasonable case to a historically unreasonable organization.”
The team can only remain optimistic that the evidence presented was enough to tilt the scale in favor of SSDP/Ramos, and if nothing else that those watching and reading about this precedent-setting hearing learned something in the process. A decision will not be formally made for several months.
As stated during the testimony of Dr. Nichols, “In order to be a researcher, you need to keep up with the field as a whole. This includes how the emerging research may influence your own experiments, as well as cause changes in perspective.”
For a deep dive into an insider versus outsider perspective on the proceedings, check out my (Dr. Jaster’s) podcast Psychedelic Brain Science where I discussed the day-to-day with journalist Jack Gorsline.
