Funding Success of United States Federal Grant Applications Proposing to Study Therapeutic Applications of Psychedelics: A Survey Study
1
Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA
2
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 9501 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA
Psychoactives 2025, 4(1), 4; https://doi.org/10.3390/psychoactives4010004
Submission received: 20 December 2024
/
Revised: 19 January 2025
/
Accepted: 21 January 2025
/
Published: 5 February 2025
Abstract
:The author surveyed researchers about United States federal grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic research and their funding success. An anonymous survey was sent to corresponding authors of the 50 most-cited psychedelic research articles published after 2000 and also disseminated on Twitter. Ten researchers responded, reporting on 24 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications for psilocybin, ibogaine, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), and other psychedelics, dating back to the early 1990s. Grant applications increased noticeably after 2006. Of the applications assessed, 16.7% were funded, below the NIH’s 23.4% average funding rate for R01-equivalent grants from 1998 to 2023. While no applications submitted before 2006–2010 were funded, the funding rate since then (19.05–22.2%) aligns with the NIH’s 20.6 ± 1.9% annual average for R01-equivalent grants from 2006 to 2023. Respondents generally perceived funding for psychedelic research as more difficult to obtain than for other areas, though recent improvements were noted. If the analyzed applications represent only a small subset of total submissions of applications proposing to study therapeutic applications of psychedelics, the findings may have limited generalizability and larger-scale validation studies would be required. However, this is difficult to determine since detailed data on unfunded NIH applications are not publicly available.
1. Introduction
The therapeutic potential of psychedelics for psychiatric and substance use disorders has generated significant scientific interest in recent decades [1,2,3,4]. However, psychedelics are Schedule I drugs in the United States (US) and carry significant sociopolitical baggage, facts that have significantly complicated research on these compounds [5]. Since the emergence of the psychedelic renaissance in the early 2000s, financial support for studies on therapeutic applications of psychedelics has largely come from philanthropy and, more recently, the biotechnology industry, rather than governments. For example, from 2006 to 2020, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) did not provide direct grant support for a single psychedelic-assisted therapy clinical trial [6]. Notably, in the last few years, governments around the world, including those of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the US, have begun increasing funding for this area of research.
In October 2021, a multisite clinical trial investigating psilocybin for nicotine use disorder was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), an NIH institute, becoming the first contemporary federally funded psychedelic-assisted therapy study in the US [7]. Since then, the NIDA has issued requests for applications (RFAs) for investigations of psychedelics’ therapeutic potential for substance use disorders [8] and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), another NIH institute, has issued guidance on grant applications for both animal and human studies of psychedelics’ therapeutic applications [9].
Over the nearly half century preceding these developments, federally supported psychedelic studies in the US had primarily focused on studying these compounds as drugs of misuse, despite their limited addictive potential [10]. Prior to this, the NIH, the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world [11], had extensively funded therapeutic research into lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) from the 1950s to the early 1970s [12,13], when the NIMH concluded LSD had no therapeutic applications [14]. Afterwards, federally funded studies involving administration of psychedelics to human subjects ceased until the NIDA funded a pharmacological investigation of dimethyltryptamine (DMT) in the early 1990s [15]. The NIDA also funded animal studies on the anti-addictive potential of ibogaine in the early 1990s, with favorable results, though the organization refused to fund subsequent proposed human trials [16].
Given the changing landscape in federal funding for studies of therapeutic applications of psychedelics in the United States, it is important to assess how funding levels for this line of research have changed over time, as well as what kinds of studies are being proposed. Unfortunately, there are no published studies on grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic studies made to US federal agencies. While some information about federally funded grants in the US must be made publicly available via resources such as NIH Reporter and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, unfunded federal grant applications are considered proprietary and not publicly accessible, even via FOIA request [17]. Therefore, it is not possible for those outside of relevant federal agencies to even determine if unfunded grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic studies exist, making this topic particularly challenging to study. However, it is still possible to survey researchers who have submitted grant applications to federal agencies, provided one can determine who some of these people might be. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to gather data on grant applications submitted to US federal agencies for therapeutic psychedelic studies via an anonymous survey of authors of high impact psychedelic research articles that was also disseminated via Twitter and snowball sampling.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Instrument
The survey was conducted using an anonymous online instrument. Regarding terminology, the survey instrument contained the following guidance for respondents: “For the purposes of this survey, therapeutic psychedelic studies include in vitro, animal, human, and other types of studies that focus on applications of psychedelics potentially beneficial to human health. These do not include studies focusing on addictive or other negative aspects of psychedelics except as these issues relate to therapeutic applications of psychedelics. Ketamine and marijuana should not be considered psychedelics for this survey”. Any researcher who had submitted a grant application to a US federal agency for a study of potential therapeutic applications of psychedelics, whether the grant application was funded or unfunded, was eligible to participate. Data from the survey were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the Cleveland Clinic [18].
The first section of the survey inquired about demographic information and the second section asked respondents about relevant grant applications, with a subsection focusing on submissions to the NIH. The third section asked respondents to register their opinions about research funding in this area using a seven-point Likert-scale. The final section posed two questions, one asking how respondents dealt with obtaining funding for projects where grant applications to federal agencies were rejected and the other asking them to provide any additional information about their experiences with attempting to obtain federal funding for therapeutic psychedelic studies.
2.2. Study Population and Survey Dissemination
The survey was emailed to corresponding authors of the 50 most highly cited articles on psychedelics with a U.S. based corresponding author. The author searched for the keyword “psychedelic” using Web of Science on 1 April 2023, and contacted qualifying corresponding authors via email on 3 April 2023. A reminder email was sent two weeks later. On 4 April 2023, the survey was also posted on the author’s Twitter account. On the survey website and in the introductory email, participants were encouraged to participate in snowball sampling by forwarding the survey onto their contacts. The survey remained open until 13 August 2023.
2.3. Ethics
This study was declared exempt by the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board. Certain measures, such as not reporting data on grant applications for individual psychedelics and reporting years of grant applications in blocks, were undertaken to protect respondent anonymity.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated in Microsoft Excel (Redmond, Washington). Some participants left certain questions blank. There was no substitution for missing data. Calculations include only those participants who provided a response to a particular question.
3. Results
There were 10 respondents. A response rate could not be calculated since it is unknown how many people receiving a survey invitation or seeing it online had submitted a relevant grant application to a US federal agency and would qualify to take the survey. The typical respondent was a middle aged White male pharmacologist, who had received significant grant funding over their career from multiple NIH institutes. Demographic details are listed in Table 1.
On average, respondents had submitted two grants for therapeutic psychedelic studies to federal government agencies. Respondents reported submitting relevant applications as far back as the 1991–1995 time block. One respondent did not provide data on the number of relevant grant applications submitted or the federal agencies to which they submitted their grant applications. However, among the nine who did, all submitted their applications to the NIH, most frequently to the NIMH and NIDA. They most frequently proposed to study therapeutic effects of psilocybin, though applications had also been submitted for LSD, 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), ibogaine, and other psychedelics. For further details on grant applications, see Table 2.
Studies were primarily in vitro or animal focused, though multiple human investigations, including one psychedelic-assisted therapy trial, had been proposed. The three most common proposed conditions for study were major depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder, and cocaine use disorder. A total of 20% (N = 2/10) of respondents reported receiving federal funding for at least one therapeutic psychedelic study and, notably, neither of these respondents reported any unsuccessful therapeutic psychedelic grant application submissions to federal agencies prior to getting their first therapeutic psychedelic grant application funded from one. For further details on types of studies proposed and diagnoses for which therapeutic applications of psychedelics were to be investigated, see Table 3.
Of the 24 grant applications submitted, 16.7% (N = 4/24) received federal funding. For years in which grant applications were submitted, see Table 4. Note that since participants were asked in what year they submitted at least one therapeutic psychedelic study grant proposal, the total N is 21 for this table instead of 24. This is relevant to the subsequent discussion about years in which applications were funded and associated funding rates. Though the survey did not specifically ask about years in which grant applications were funded, the two respondents who were successful in achieving grant funding did not submit their first relevant grant applications until the 2006–2010 time block, allowing the deduction that no grant applications were funded from the 1991–1995 time block to the 2001–2005 time blocks, a period in which at least three applications but no more than six were submitted. These two successful applicants also submitted grant applications in more recent years, so it is not possible from these data to deduce exactly when from 2006 to early 2023 the first grant applications in the sample were funded. However, if we assume the first funded application was in the 2006–2010 time block, and we assume that 21 of the 24 applications were submitted from 2006 to early 2023, this would yield a funding rate of 19.05% (4/21) during that period. If we assume that 18 applications were submitted during that period, the funding rate would increase to 22.2% (4/18).
A total of 90.0% (N = 9/10) of respondents reported at least one unfunded grant application for a therapeutic psychedelic study made to a federal agency. A total of 22.2% (N = 2/9) of the participants who submitted relevant grant applications to the NIH received funding for at least one application. Among the participants who did not receive NIH funding for at least one grant application, 71.4% (N = 5/7) reported receiving an overall impact score. An impact score is a measure of application quality made by a review committee. Applications rejected early in the grant application process are not sent to a review committee and therefore do not receive an impact score (see discussion for more details on score interpretation). The best overall impact score (mean ± standard deviation) of a grant application to the NIH that was not funded was 36.3 ± 11.2 [N = 4]. The best overall impact score of a grant application to NIH that was funded was 22.5 ± 6.4 (N = 2).
Respondents predominantly felt that grant applications for therapeutic studies of psychedelics were significantly less likely to receive federal grant compared to other grant applications they had submitted, and that the US federal government is significantly underinvested in therapeutic psychedelic research. Most respondents believed the odds of receiving federal grant funding for therapeutic psychedelic studies have improved over the last five years, with the qualifier “somewhat” being most frequently selected by these individuals. Of the nine respondents who had at least one unfunded NIH grant application, 33.3% (N = 3) reported their proposed study was still unfunded. The rest obtained financial support from alternate sources, with funding from their own institution and psychedelic-focused non-profit organizations being most frequently reported. For further details on answers to these questions, see Table 5.
Multiple respondents provided written responses about their experiences attempting to obtain federal funding for therapeutic psychedelic studies. One respondent wrote, “I had extensive discussions with NIH institutes about submitting other [grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic studies] but was discouraged from doing so. So, it never got to the point of review”. Another respondent noted that a grant application to the NIH for a clinical trial cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration had received a “not recommended for further consideration” decision, so it was not reviewed and given an impact score. One respondent wrote, “NIDA, unlike NIMH, has not recognized the importance of transformative effects of psychedelics for drug dependence”. Another respondent observed, “Not only funding agencies, but reviewers used to be very skeptical and critical of these applications, many of which did not reach council for decisions”. However, this respondent struck an optimistic tone about the current federal funding landscape, stating now “there is hope”.
4. Discussion
This appears to be the first survey study of investigators submitting grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic studies to US federal agencies. Findings demonstrate that multiple studies proposing to investigate the therapeutic potential of psychedelics, which were primarily in vitro and animal investigations targeting major depressive disorder and substance use disorders, have been submitted to NIH since 1991–1995. Given that the average funding amount for an NIH grant in 2022 was USD 592,617 [19], the significant career-spanning federal grant funding obtained by respondents indicates this is a highly skilled group of researchers. That at least three grant applications were submitted prior to 2006 signifies there were efforts by some in this group to conduct therapeutic studies of multiple psychedelics before the psychedelic renaissance began. Looking at the data in totality, they suggest that grant applications for therapeutic applications of psychedelics have risen considerably in recent years and, as discussed below, so has NIH funding for this line of research.
A total of 16.7% of these grant applications were funded, which is somewhat lower than the average annual funding rate of 23.4 ± 4.9% for R-01 equivalent grant applications made to the NIH from 1998 (the earliest year for which data are publicly available online) to early 2023 [20]. Notably, no submitted applications were funded from the 1991–1995 block to the 2001–2005 block and the average annual funding rate for R-01 equivalent grant applications made to the NIH from 1998 to 2005 was 29.6 ± 3.3%. Using the assumptions previously discussed in the results section, the funding rate in this sample was somewhere from 19.05% to 22.2% from 2006 to early 2023, which is close to the average annual NIH funding rate for R-01 equivalent grant applications over this period of 20.6 ± 1.9%. This suggests that there has been a considerable increase in NIH support for this line of research since 2006–2010.
Respondents reported important information about the perceived quality of grant applications by NIH reviewers via the best impact scores of funded and unfunded applications. The NIH’s website provides the following general guidance about the relationship between the impact score and likelihood of receiving funding: “The normalized average of all reviewer impact/priority scores constitutes the final impact/priority score. Impact scores run from 10 to 90, where 10 is best. Generally, impact/priority scores of 10 to 30 are most likely to be funded; scores between 31 and 45 might be funded; scores greater than 46 are rarely funded. Before 2009, NIH used a different score system, with final scores from 100 to 500, where 100 was best [21]”. Of note, respondents reported only impact scores consistent with the post-2009 scoring system. For rejected NIH applications where an impact score was reported, two scores fell within the 10–30 range, one within the 31–45 range, and one was greater than 46. This impact score distribution indicates that despite being considered high quality by reviewers, some applications were not funded by the NIH. Notably, one respondent also reported NIH staff had discouraged them from submitting grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic studies and another alleged that reviewers in the past tended to be overly critical of these applications, preventing some from ever reaching a committee review.
Respondents predominantly felt that grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic studies were significantly less likely to receive federal funding compared to other applications they had submitted, which is notable given that respondents reported career-spanning grant funding consistent with having obtained multiple grants. They also largely believed the US federal government is significantly underinvested in therapeutic psychedelic research. However, most respondents believed the likelihood of obtaining federal funding for therapeutic psychedelic research has improved over the last five years, consistent with this study’s previously mentioned findings.
Some respondents reported that proposed projects not receiving federal funding remained unfunded by any source, though most respondents obtained financial support from elsewhere for these projects, primarily from their own institutions or psychedelic-focused non-profit organizations. While philanthropic funding has been essential to re-launching therapeutic psychedelic research, some researchers have also observed that it is increasingly hard to obtain due to growing interest among potential donors in investing in psychedelic-related commercial endeavors [22].
Overall, this study suggests that a tangible shift in NIH support for studies investigating therapeutic applications of psychedelics has occurred in recent years. This is a hopeful finding since, in addition to allowing more investigators to participate in studies on therapeutic applications of psychedelics, increased public funding for this research could allow for larger clinical trials with longer-term follow-up to better understand the long-term safety profile and durability of response of psychedelic treatments, without the potential biases associated with commercially sponsored studies [23].
Limitations
Given the lack of publicly available data on unfunded grant applications made to the NIH, it is unknown whether the applications evaluated in this study constitute a minority, a majority, or the entirety of grant applications proposing to study the therapeutic effects of psychedelics submitted during the study period. If they constitute a minority, the small sample size could affect the generalizability of this study’s findings, and the funding success rates could be inaccurate. Respondents were mostly middle aged White male pharmacologists, who submitted grant applications primarily focusing on in vitro or animal studies of major depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder, and cocaine use disorder. If this is not representative of the investigators submitting these types of grant applications and the content of such applications, this study’s findings could potentially be affected in multiple ways. For example, funding success rates could be inflated given the preponderance of White male respondents, since gender, ethnic, and racial disparities favoring this group have been noted in rates of funding success for NIH grant applications [24]. Alternatively, funding may be higher for physician-scientists compared to other researchers such as pharmacologists and for animal studies compared to clinical studies [25]. Finally, since depression was the most common focus of the analyzed grants, it is worth noting that depression research is considered underfunded by the NIH relative to the condition’s significant burden of disease in the population [26].
Another possible limitation to consider is non-response bias. Although any investigator who had submitted a federal grant application for a therapeutic psychedelic study was invited to participate, it is possible that certain biases influenced participation. Investigators who faced repeated rejections from federal agencies might have been more motivated to participate out of frustration with their unsuccessful funding attempts. Conversely, those who experienced relative ease in securing federal funding might also have been more inclined to participate. Therefore, the proportion of unsuccessful to successful grant applications reported here may not be an accurate reflection of reality. However, a review of publicly available data on NIH funded grants reveals only a small number of therapeutic psychedelic studies, with very few involving human subjects, though the number has increased in recent years, consistent with this study’s findings.
5. Conclusions
This study provides first-of-its-kind data indicating that since at least the early 1990s, there have been several grant applications proposing to investigate therapeutic applications of psychedelics submitted to the NIH. These data indicate that such grant applications began to rise significantly starting in 2006. While no relevant grant applications submitted prior to 2006–2010 were funded by the NIH, the funding rate of applications since that time is close to the average annual NIH funding rate for R-01 equivalent grant applications. Unfortunately, these data do not indicate when the first relevant grant application from this survey’s respondents was funded, other than that it occurred sometime after 2005. If the analyzed grant applications represent only a small subset of total relevant grant applications, these findings may have limited generalizability and larger-scale validation studies would be required. However, this is difficult to determine since detailed data on unfunded NIH applications are not publicly available.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Cleveland Clinic (protocol code 22-1175, approved on 18 October 2022).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board of Cleveland Clinic.
Data Availability Statement
The author will promptly share data for this study upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
Dr. Barnett holds stock options in CB Therapeutics. He has served on advisory boards for CB Therapeutics, Compass Pathways, Livanova, and MindMed. He receives monetary compensation from DynaMed Plus (EBSCO Industries, Inc.) for editorial work. Dr. Barnett has received research support from Compass Pathways, MindMed, and Reunion Neuroscience.
References
- Reiff, C.M.; Richman, E.E.; Nemeroff, C.B.; Carpenter, L.L.; Widge, A.S.; Rodriguez, C.I.; Kalin, N.H.; McDonald, W.M. Psychedelics and Psychedelic-Assisted Psychotherapy. Am. J. Psychiatry 2020, 177, 391–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, K. US suicide deaths reached record high in 2022, CDC data shows 2023. Reuters, 11 August 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Spencer, M.R.; Miniño, A.M.; Warner, M. Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2001–2021; NCHS Data Brief No. 457; National Center for Health Statistics: Hyattsville, MD, USA, 2022; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Barnett, B.; Weleff, J. Psychedelics in the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders. Psychiatr. Ann. 2022, 52, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, B.S.; Vest, M.F.; Delatte, M.S.; King, F., IV; Mauney, E.E.; Coulson, A.J.; Nayak, S.M.; Hendricks, P.S.; Greer, G.R.; Murnane, K.S. Practical considerations in the establishment of psychedelic research programs. Psychopharmacology 2024, 242, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, B.; Parker, S.E.; Weleff, J. United States National Institutes of Health grant funding for psychedelic-assisted therapy clinical trials from 2006–2020. Int. J. Drug Policy 2021, 99, 103473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johns Hopkins Medicine. Johns Hopkins Medicine Receives First Federal Grant for Psychedelic Treatment Research in 50 Years. Available online: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/johns-hopkins-medicine-receives-first-federal-grant-for-psychedelic-treatment-research-in-50-years (accessed on 3 June 2022).
- National Institutes of Health. Advancing Psychedelics Research for Treating Addiction (R61/R33 Clinical Trial Required); NIH: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- National Institutes of Health. Notice of Information on NIMH’s Considerations for Research Involving Psychedelics and Related Compounds; NIH: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Shalit, N.; Rehm, J.; Lev-Ran, S. Epidemiology of hallucinogen use in the U.S. results from the National epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions III. Addict. Behav. 2019, 89, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Institutes of Health. Impact of NIH Research; NIH: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- National Institutes of Health. A psychosis-producing drug. In National Institutes of Health Progress Report; United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Washington, DC, USA, 1955; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Oram, M. Efficacy and enlightenment: LSD psychotherapy and the Drug Amendments of 1962. J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci. 2014, 69, 221–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, S.; Krippner, S. Editors’ Introduction. J. Psychoact. Drugs 1985, 17, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Strassman, R.J. Human psychopharmacology of N,N-dimethyltryptamine. Behav. Brain Res. 1996, 73, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oaklander, M. Inside Ibogaine, One of the Most Promising and Perilous Psychedelics for Addiction. Time, 5 April 2021. [Google Scholar]
- US National Institutes of Health. NIH Grants Policy Statement: 2.3.11 Availability and Confidentiality of Information; NIH: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Thielke, R.; Payne, J.; Gonzalez, N.; Conde, J.G. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J. Biomed. Inform. 2009, 42, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Institutes of Health. Research Project Grants: Average Size; NIH: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- United States National Institutes of Health. R01-Equivalent Grants: Competing Applications, Awards, and Success Rates; NIH: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- National Library of Medicine. Grants and Funding: Extramural Programs (EP) Frequently Asked Questions; National Library of Medicine: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Powell, A. New center seeks to understand any ‘magic’ in mushrooms. Harvard Gazette, 10 June 2021. Available online: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/06/harvard-medical-school-professor-discusses-future-of-psychedelics/ (accessed on 20 January 2025).
- Hall, W. The need for publicly funded research on therapeutic use of psychedelic drugs. World Psychiatry 2021, 20, 197–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nguyen, M.; Chaudhry, S.I.; Desai, M.M.; Dzirasa, K.; Cavazos, J.E.; Boatright, D. Gender, Racial, and Ethnic and Inequities in Receipt of Multiple National Institutes of Health Research Project Grants. JAMA Netw. Open 2023, 6, e230855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kotchen, T.A.; Lindquist, T.; Malik, K.; Ehrenfeld, E. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. JAMA 2004, 291, 836–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gillum, L.A.; Gouveia, C.; Dorsey, E.R.; Pletcher, M.; Mathers, C.D.; McCulloch, C.E.; Johnston, S.C. NIH disease funding levels and burden of disease. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e16837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Respondent demographic information.
| Respondent Characteristic | % (n/N) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age in years (mean ± SD) [N = 8] | 53.89 ± 12.6 | |
| Male gender | 77.8 (7/9) | |
| Race/ethnicity * | ||
| White | 88.9 (8/9) | |
| Hispanic | 22.2 (2/9) | |
| Profession | ||
| Palliative care physician | 10.0 (1/10) | |
| Pharmacologist | 60.0 (6/10) | |
| Psychiatrist | 20.0 (2/10) | |
| Psychologist | 10.0 (1/10) | |
| Academic title | ||
| Instructor | 10.0 (1/10) | |
| Assistant professor | 10.0 (1/10) | |
| Associate professor | 10.0 (1/10) | |
| Full professor | 70.0 (7/10) | |
| Federal agencies from which respondent has received funding * | ||
| National Institute of Mental Health | 66.7 (6/9) | |
| National Institute on Drug Abuse | 66.7 (6/9) | |
| Other NIH institute | 66.7 (6/9) | |
| Department of Defense | 11.1 (1/9) | |
| Grant funding received from US federal agencies over career (mean ± SD) [N = 9] | $5,723,889 ± 4,903,877 |
* Sums to >100% due to respondents selecting multiple answers.
Table 2.
Information about grant applications submitted to federal agencies for therapeutic psychedelic investigations.
Table 2.
Information about grant applications submitted to federal agencies for therapeutic psychedelic investigations.
| Grant Application Attribute | % (n/N) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of grant applications submitted to federal agencies for therapeutic psychedelic investigations per respondent (mean ± SD) [N = 9] | 2.7 ± 1.7 | |
| Number of above grant applications funded per respondent (mean ± SD) [N = 9] | 0.4 ± 1.0 | |
| Number of unsuccessful therapeutic psychedelic grant applications submitted prior to getting first one funded among respondents receiving funding | 0 (2/2) | |
| Federal agencies to which respondents submitted therapeutic psychedelic study grant applications * | ||
| National Institute of Mental Health | 44.4 (4/9) | |
| National Institute on Drug Abuse | 33.3 (3/9) | |
| National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism | 11.1 (1/9) | |
| National Cancer Institute | 11.1 (1/9) | |
| Other NIH Institutes | 22.2 (2/9) | |
| Psychedelics that respondents proposed to study * | ||
| 2C-B (4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine) | 0 | |
| 5-MEo-DMT (5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine) | 0 | |
| DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) | 0 | |
| DOM (2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine) | 0 | |
| Psilocybin | 33.3 (3/9) | |
| Ibogaine | 11.1 (1/9) | |
| LSD | 11.1 (1/9) | |
| Mescaline/Peyote | 0 | |
| MDMA | 11.1 (1/9) | |
| Other | 55.6 (5/9) |
* Sums to >100% due to some respondents submitting multiple grant applications.
Table 3.
Data on proposed study type and diagnoses of focus in grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic studies submitted to federal agencies.
Table 3.
Data on proposed study type and diagnoses of focus in grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic studies submitted to federal agencies.
| Grant Application Attribute | % (n/N) |
|---|---|
| Type of study proposed * | |
| In vitro | 70 (7/10) |
| Animal | 70 (7/10) |
| Human-psychedelic-assisted therapy | 10 (1/10) |
| Human-neuroimaging | 0 |
| Human-pharmacology | 10 (1/10) |
| Human-other type of study | 20 (2/10) |
| Diagnoses proposed * | |
| Alcohol use disorder | 30 (3/10) |
| Cocaine use disorder | 30 (3/10) |
| Major depressive disorder | 40 (4/10) |
| Obsessive compulsive disorder | 10 (1/10) |
| Posttraumatic stress disorder | 10 (1/10) |
| Stimulant use disorder | 20 (2/10) |
| Other condition | 20 (2/10) |
* Sums to >100% due to some respondents submitting multiple grant applications.
Table 4.
Years in which grant applications proposing to study therapeutic applications of psychedelics were submitted *.
Table 4.
Years in which grant applications proposing to study therapeutic applications of psychedelics were submitted *.
| Years | Proportion of Applications Submitted % (n/N) |
|---|---|
| 2021-early 2023 | 23.8 (5/21) |
| 2016–2020 | 23.8 (5/21) |
| 2011–2015 | 14.3 (3/21) |
| 2006–2010 | 23.8 (5/21) |
| 2001–2005 | 0 |
| 1996–2000 | 9.5 (2/21) |
| 1991–1995 | 4.8 (1/21) |
| 1990 and prior | 0 |
* Due to some respondents submitting multiple grants in the same time period, N = 21 instead of 24.
Table 5.
Respondent answers to opinion questions.
| Opinion Question and Response Options | % (n/N) |
|---|---|
| Have you noticed any difference in how frequently your therapeutic psychedelic grant applications receive US federal agency funding compared to your grant applications for research in other areas? | |
| Grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic studies appear: | |
| Significantly less likely to receive federal grant funding | 88.9 (8/9) |
| Moderately less likely to receive federal grant funding | 0 |
| Somewhat less likely to receive federal grant funding | 11.1 (1/9) |
| To receive federal grant funding at the same rate as other areas of research | 0 |
| Somewhat more likely to receive federal grant funding | 0 |
| Moderately more likely to receive federal grant funding | 0 |
| Significantly more likely to receive federal grant funding | 0 |
| How do you view the current US federal government investment in therapeutic psychedelic research given existing data on therapeutic efficacy and safety? | |
| Significantly overinvested | 10.0 (1/10) |
| Moderately overinvested | 0 |
| Somewhat overinvested | 0 |
| Appropriately invested | 0 |
| Somewhat underinvested | 0 |
| Moderately underinvested | 10.0 (1/10) |
| Significantly underinvested | 80.0 (8/10) |
| How do you think the odds of receiving federal grant funding for therapeutic psychedelic research have changed over the last 5 years? | |
| Worsened significantly | 0 |
| Worsened moderately | 0 |
| Worsened somewhat | 0 |
| Unchanged | 30.0 (3/10) |
| Improved somewhat | 40.0 (4/10) |
| Improved moderately | 20.0 (2/10) |
| Improved significantly | 10.0 (1/10) |
| If you have had US federal grant applications for therapeutic psychedelic research rejected, how have you dealt with getting those projects funded (choose all that apply)? * | |
| Project or projects remain unfunded | 33.3 (3/9) |
| Obtained internal funding from own institution | 55.6 (5/9) |
| Obtained funding from crowdsourcing | 0 |
| Obtained funding from psychedelic focused non-profit organizations | 44.4 (4/9) |
| Obtained funding from other types of non-profit organizations | 33.3 (3/9) |
| Self-funded | 11.1 (1/9) |
| Obtained funding from other sources | 55.6 (5/9) |
* Sums to >100% due to respondents being able to select multiple answers.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Barnett, B.S. Funding Success of United States Federal Grant Applications Proposing to Study Therapeutic Applications of Psychedelics: A Survey Study. Psychoactives 2025, 4, 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychoactives4010004
AMA Style
Barnett BS. Funding Success of United States Federal Grant Applications Proposing to Study Therapeutic Applications of Psychedelics: A Survey Study. Psychoactives. 2025; 4(1):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychoactives4010004
Chicago/Turabian StyleBarnett, Brian S. 2025. "Funding Success of United States Federal Grant Applications Proposing to Study Therapeutic Applications of Psychedelics: A Survey Study" Psychoactives 4, no. 1: 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychoactives4010004
APA StyleBarnett, B. S. (2025). Funding Success of United States Federal Grant Applications Proposing to Study Therapeutic Applications of Psychedelics: A Survey Study. Psychoactives, 4(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychoactives4010004
