Psychedelic Lobbying and Regulatory Capture

Abstract

As the psychedelic-medicine sector expands from a fringe area into a substantial commercial industry, stakeholders are increasingly investing in lobbying and public-comment campaigns to shape the regulatory frameworks that will govern psychedelic therapies. This essay revisits the classical concept of "regulatory capture"-as articulated by George Stigler-and applies it to the contemporary psychedelic lobbying landscape, with particular focus on the public comments submitted in response to the FDA's 2023 draft guidance on psychedelic clinical investigations. Comparing the positions taken by MAPS Public Benefit Corporation (now Lykos Therapeutics) and COMPASS Pathways, the essay shows that competing psychedelic developers are advocating for materially different definitions of psychedelic therapy-definitions that align with their respective product models and that, if adopted, would carry significant downstream consequences for cost, access, and competition. The essay argues that lobbying in nascent regulated industries is not inherently problematic; the more important question is institutional: whether regulators have the independence, resources, and procedural safeguards (independent standards-of-care bodies, revolving-door restrictions, internal dispute-review processes) to evaluate stakeholder input on its scientific merits rather than be captured by it.