Why the future of psychedelic medicine might be shaped by science, not trips

DCM Editorial Summary: This story has been independently rewritten and summarised for DCM readers to highlight key developments relevant to the region. Original reporting by The Conversation, click this post to read the original article.

In 2025, psychedelic medicine is seeing renewed interest. Investors are returning, regulations are gradually easing, and recent clinical trials are showing better results. Even major pharmaceutical companies that once avoided the sector are showing interest. This marks a significant turnaround from the decline in 2022, when poor trial results and rising interest rates caused a collapse in stock prices and funding. However, while optimism has returned, turning psychedelics into commercially viable treatments remains a complex challenge.

As you look into the sector, you’ll notice three major obstacles. First, issues around intellectual property make it hard to protect and profit from these drugs. Many psychedelic compounds—like psilocybin and mescaline—are natural and cannot be patented. Others, like LSD, are synthetic but long out of patent protection. While companies can patent delivery systems or minor chemical tweaks, these protections are often weak and don’t offer the security that attracts serious investment.

The second challenge you’ll see is practical: administering psychedelics is resource-intensive. A single session can last six to 15 hours and requires trained staff, a dedicated clinical space, and follow-up support, making it difficult to deliver at scale. Health systems and insurers haven’t figured out how to support this model, which differs significantly from conventional medications you can take at home.

Third, there’s a testing challenge. Standard drug trials rely on double-blinded methods, but with psychedelics, it’s immediately clear who has taken the active substance. This makes it hard to meet traditional approval standards, adding uncertainty for regulators and investors. To navigate this, some companies are developing fast-acting psychedelics or entirely new compounds called neuroplastogens, which aim to offer therapeutic effects without the hallucinogenic experience.

These two directions reflect a tension in the field. While companies look for ways to make treatments easier to patent, scale, and insure, they often downplay the psychedelic “trip” itself—which many patients see as key to the therapy’s success. If you believe the experience is essential, then mass-market psychedelic medicine may fall short of its promise to transform mental health care.