Sanitizing psychedelics: the biopolitics of non-hallucinogenic psychoplastogens

The emergence of non-hallucinogenic psychoplastogens, which promote neuroplasticity without altering consciousness, creates a philosophical divide in psychedelic medicine. Psychedelic-assisted therapy treats subjective experience as central to healing, while psychoplastogens aim to repair brain circuits without inducing altered states. Drawing on socio-technical imaginaries and biopolitics, the paper contrasts these approaches, examining tensions between confronting emotional difficulty and pursuing sanitized, effortless treatment. The controversy reflects competing biopolitical visions of mental health, suffering, and therapeutic transformation, with implications for psychiatry's future.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Abstract The emergence of non-hallucinogenic psychoplastogens signals a profound philosophical and therapeutic chasm in the discourse surrounding psychedelic medicine. Unlike psychedelic-assisted therapy, which emphasizes subjective experience as central to healing, psychoplastogens are framed as purely neuroplasticity-driven treatments, aiming to repair brain circuits without inducing altered states of consciousness. This reconceptualization poses fundamental questions about the role and necessity of consciousness and subjective experience in mental health treatment. Research on non-hallucinogenic psychoplastogens is still in its infancy. However, the field attracts much popular, scientific and financial interest, fueling lively debates. Drawing on the concepts of socio-technical imaginaries, biopolitics, and critiques of psychedelic medicalization and commodification, the paper contrasts PAT’s experience-centered approach with the psychoplastogenic paradigm’s attempt at experiential sterilization, and critically examines the tension between psychedelic therapy’s ethos of confronting emotional difficulty and psychoplastogens’ promise of sanitized, effortless, scalable healing. While scientific and economic forces significantly drive the redefinition of psychedelics, the controversy ultimately embodies competing biopolitical imaginaries of mental health, human suffering, and the very nature of therapeutic transformation, carrying profound implications for psychiatry’s future.