The practice of microdosing is when an individual takes approximately one-tenth of a normal dose of either psilocybin or lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) on a regular schedule. The article “Microdosing psychedelics: personality, mental health, and creativity differences in Microdosers” written by Thomas Anderson, Rotem Petranker, Daniel Rosenbaum et al. published in 2019 is about an observational study that consisted of individuals that self-reported about their microdosing behaviors and the effects it has on their dysfunctional attitudes, wisdom, negative emotionality, open-mindedness, and mood. Another article called “Powerful substances in tiny amounts: An interview study of psychedelic microdosing” written by Petter Grahl Johnstad published in 2018 is about a qualitative interview study on 21 male respondents who microdose to enhance everyday functioning and see whether it counteracts some of the symptoms of mental illnesses. Lastly, “Rapid and sustained symptom reduction following psilocybin treatment for anxiety and depression in patients with life-threatening cancer: a randomized controlled trial” by Stephen Ross, Anthony Bossis, Jeffrey Guss et al. published in 2016 is a double-blind experiment that involved 29 patients with cancer related anxiety and depression. I have analyzed three articles to answer the question of how psychedelics are used in the modern world to treat different illness; these articles discuss the uses of microdosing in the modern world to treat different illnesses such as anxiety and depression and present data that support their conclusions while also expressing limitations within their studies. 

Recent research shows that microdosing has positive effects on treating mental illness such as depression and anxiety among regular people who have never microdosed to people who have experience as well as in cancer patients. The observational study that Thomas Anderson, Rotem Petranker, Daniel Rosenbaum et al conducted found that microdosing predicted lower scores on dysfunctional attitudes, higher wisdom scores, lower negative emotionality, greater open-mindedness, and higher on creativity (Thomas Anderson et al, 2019). This infers that microdosing is correlated to establishing a better well-being and mental state. Higher dysfunctional attitudes are associated with depression because they “maintain a set of disadvantageous beliefs that increase vulnerability to stressors’ ‘ (Thomas Anderson, Rotem Petranker, Daniel Rosenbaum et al, 2019). Likewise, tendencies to experience negative emotionality is an indicator of mental and physical problems an individual may have including anxiety or depression (Thomas Anderson, Rotem Petranker, Daniel Rosenbaum et al). This observational study concludes to a correlational relationship between microdosing and a decrease in the likeliness of a person to experience depression or anxiety. Likewise, in the qualitative interview study that Petter Grahl Johnstad conducted, his research found that the drugs allowed respondents to “function better in everyday life” and “the most commonly described effects were health-related, with a benign influence noted especially on states of depression and anxiety” (Petter Grahl Johnstad, 2018). Not only did microdosing help individuals who were trying to enhance their everyday behaviors, it mostly helped people that were prescribed other medication from pharmaceuticals to help with their depression or anxiety that did not work (Petter Grahl Johnstad, 2018). An individual stated, “ I have found fast and relatively long-lasting relief from depression and social anxiety…This helped immensely with my manic bipolar depression and suicidal intentions” (Petter Grahl Johnstad, 2018). This provides the study with a direct source from one of the respondents in the study that correlates microdosing to a better mental health. However, since this is an interview study and there yet again, no control group, it is difficult to establish a causal relationship, and only develop a correlational one. A causal relationship occurs between two variables that establishes a cause and effect and can be proved through an experiment. On the contrary, a correlational relationship is simply a relationship that could occur accidently. Hence, a correlation does not necessarily mean there is a causal relationship, but if there is a causal relationship between two variables, there is a correlation. The observational study that Thomas Anderson, Rotem Petranker, Daniel Rosenbaum et al. conducted and the qualitative interview study that Petter Grahl Johnstad performed only proved a correlational relationship that is the positive effect microdosing psychedelics has on the mental well-being of a person. 

Unlike the observational and qualitative interview, the double-blind experiment conducted by Stephen Ross, Anthony Bossis, Jeffrey Guss et al. on cancer patients suggests that mental health can improve by microdosing psychedelics and establishes a causal relationship between the two variables. In the double-blind experiment, where there was a control group, Stephen Ross, Anthony Bossis, Jeffrey Guss et al., found similar results to that of the observational study in that the group that was given psilocybin demonstrated immediate clinical benefits to reduce their anxiety and depression symptoms compared to the group of cancer patients that had not received the drug (Stephen Ross, Anthony Bossis, Jeffrey Guss et al., 2016).

This shows that the psilocybin had an immediate effect on the cancer patient’s improved mental health. Furthemore, in a follow-up assessment, the article states “psilocybin produced decreases in cancer-related demoralization and hopelessness, while improving spiritual well-being and quality of life” (Stephen Ross, Anthony Bossis, Jeffrey Guss et al., 2016).  This means that the psilocybin has continued to help these patients deal with existential distress in a more positive way for their mental health. With the results of the double-blind experiment, researchers from the observational and qualitative interview study can be influenced to find the potential causal relationship in their own research. Anderson et al and Johnstad’s articles discuss the correlation that microdosing improves an individual with their mental state; however, Ross and Guss et al. conduct an experiment that proves microdosing helped with the cancer patients’ mental being. 

Furthermore, there are limitations that are associated with these kinds of studies. The observational study had a sample that represented a community of microdosers that were from a variety of different countries; however, the majority of participants were male, white, from the middle-class, and heterosexual (Thomas Anderson, Rotem Petranker, Daniel Rosenbaum et al, 2019). This sample does not represent the actual population of microdosing, so it is difficult to make a generalization out of this sample for the whole population. Moreover, since this is an observational study and not an experiment with a control group, the researcher is unable to infer a causal relationship, but only be able to establish a correlational relationship. Hence, the results cannot explicitly state that microdosing causes an individual to have a decreased dysfunctional attitude or negative emotionality. The article, “Powerful substances in tiny amounts: An interview study of psychedelic microdosing,” had only 21 male respondents in their qualitative interview study that all have a stable job, relationship with a significant other, a median age of somewhere in the 30’s, and a history with psychedelics (Petter Grahl Johnstad, 2018). Hence this indicates that generalizations cannot be made about the entire population who could potentially begin to microdose. Additionally, this was a qualitative interview study, so the researcher was unable to establish a causal relationship between microdosing and improved mental well-being. Similarly, the article, “Rapid and sustained symptom reduction following psilocybin treatment for anxiety and depression in patients with life-threatening cancer: a randomized controlled trial,” stated that “this trial was limited by a relatively small sample size” that was did not represent the national cancer patient population since the study was made up of 62% women and 90% Caucaisan (Stephen Ross, Anthony Bossis, Jeffrey Guss et al., 2016). Although this experiment deemed a causal relationship between microdosing psychedelics and improved mental health, it failed to represent the actual population, so it is hard to make generalizations about the entire population with this study alone. Because all three experiments have a small sample size that does not represent the holistic population, all three articles mention that they must conduct future experiments that establish a causal relationship that represents the whole population, or a study that does not just pertain to a certain demographic. 

Anderson and Petranker et. all, Ross and Guss et. all, and Johnstad mention each respective study that was conducted, the possible problems associated with each study, and discuss the different situations an individual may microdose in order to improve their mental illness that includes anxiety and depression, which answers the research question of how psychedelics are used in the modern world to treat mental illnesses. Microdosing psychedelics is still something that is unfamiliar to humans. Currently, researchers are conducting different types of research that pertain to microdosing psychedelics in order to provide an alternative to medication for depression and anxiety. Many observational or qualitative interview studies have been done in the past to look for the correlational relationship between the two variables of microdosing and mental health, and now researchers must switch to developing a causal relationship between the two. In order for future experiments to be conducted, all three articles state that they must perform more controlled experiments, like a double-blind experiment, and obtain a group of individuals that represent the bigger population in order to establish a causal relationship between microdosing and mental well-being.

Works Cited

Anderson, Thomas & Petranker, Rotem & Dinh-Williams, Le-Anh & Rosenbaum, Daniel & 

Weissman, Cory & Hapke, Emma & Hui, Katrina & Farb, Norman. (2018). Microdosing Psychedelics: Personality, mental health, and creativity differences in microdosers. 10.31234/osf.io/gk4jd. Retrieved March 9, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328700778_Microdosing_Psychedelics_Personality_mental_health_and_creativity_differences_in_microdosers

Johnstad, P. G. (n.d.). Powerful substances in tiny amounts: An interview study of psychedelic 

microdosing – Petter Grahl Johnstad, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2020, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1455072517753339

Ross, S., Bossis, A., Guss, J., Agin-Liebes, G., Malone, T., Cohen, B., … Schmidt, B. L. (2016, 

December). Rapid and sustained symptom reduction following psilocybin treatment for anxiety and depression in patients with life-threatening cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Retrieved March 9, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5367551/