Sanitizing psychedelics: the biopolitics of non-hallucinogenic psychoplastogens
Biosocieties January 8, 2026 DOI: 10.1057/s41292-025-00377-y (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Biopower Medicalization Diathesis–stress model Consciousness Ethos Field mathematics Mental health Perspective graphical Commodification Environmental ethics Epistemology Experiential learning Transpersonal psychology Dehumanization Neuroethics Medical tourism Bioethics Neoliberalism international relations Criticism Technoscience Scientism Slogan Subjectivity Schizophrenia object-oriented programming |
| Citations | 1 |
| Key points | Argues that the tension between psychedelic-assisted therapy's experience-centered approach and psychoplastogens' promise of sanitized, effortless healing embodies competing biopolitical imaginaries of mental health and therapeutic transformation. |
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.