Psychedelic Research Institutions: Who Is Doing the Work

Why the institution matters

Who runs a trial shapes what it measures, who gets in and how the results are reported. This page maps the main groups behind modern psychedelic research and shows how to check who paid for a given study. It is not a summary of the evidence: for what the trials found, use the research library, which lists each study with its sample size and limits, and the condition pages such as psilocybin for depression. For studies you could join, see the recruiting trials list.

For the longer history, see the psychedelic renaissance timeline.

Academic centres

Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins researchers say they were the first in the US to get regulatory approval, in 2000, to resume giving psychedelics to healthy volunteers with no previous experience of them. (Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, 2026) Their 2006 paper gave psilocybin to 36 hallucinogen-naive adults and reported experiences that volunteers rated as personally meaningful two months later. (Psychopharmacology, 2006) The university established its Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research in 2019, and in 2024 it opened a clinic for people with difficulties after a psychedelic experience. (Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, 2026)

Hopkins trials in the library include the open-label smoking-cessation pilot (12 of 15 abstinent at six months), the cancer distress trial in 51 patients and a small randomised depression trial in 27 adults. (Journal of Psychopharmacology, 2014; The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2017; Journal of Psychopharmacology, 2016; JAMA Psychiatry, 2021)

Imperial College London

Imperial launched what it called the first formal centre for psychedelic research on 26 April 2019, funded by more than 3 million pounds from five founding donors. (Imperial College London, 26 Apr 2019) It now operates as the Imperial Centre for Interventional Psychiatry and Psychedelic Research. (Imperial College London, 2026) Its best-known clinical work is the 12-patient open-label study in treatment-resistant depression and the 59-patient comparison of psilocybin with escitalopram, where the primary outcome did not differ significantly. (The Lancet Psychiatry, 2016; New England Journal of Medicine, 2021) Imperial also runs brain-imaging studies, for example of DMT in 20 healthy volunteers. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2023)

NYU Langone

NYU Langone announced its Center for Psychedelic Medicine on 24 February 2021, with more than 10 million dollars in philanthropic support and Michael Bogenschutz as director. (NYU Langone Health, 24 Feb 2021) Its researchers ran the 29-patient cancer anxiety trial and the 95-person alcohol use disorder trial. (Journal of Psychopharmacology, 2016; JAMA Psychiatry, 2022)

Other centres

• Mount Sinai (New York) launched its Center for Psychedelic Psychotherapy and Trauma Research on 7 January 2021, led by Rachel Yehuda, to study MDMA, psilocybin and other compounds. (Mount Sinai, 7 Jan 2021)
• UC Berkeley launched its Center for the Science of Psychedelics on 14 September 2020 with 1.25 million dollars in seed funding from an anonymous donor; its plans covered research, facilitator training and public education. (Berkeley News, 14 Sep 2020)
• UCSF runs the Translational Psychedelic Research Program, directed by Joshua Woolley, with studies in Parkinson's disease, chronic low back pain and depression. (University of California, San Francisco, 2026)
• Maastricht University (Netherlands) has a microdosing research line; a 2019 review led by Kim Kuypers with Imperial's David Nutt set out a framework for studying it. (Maastricht University, 15 Jul 2019)

Many trials come from hospitals without a named centre. The ayahuasca depression trial was run at the Brain Institute of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte in Brazil, and the clinician depression trial at the University of Washington. (Psychological Medicine, 2019; JAMA Network Open, 2024)

Non-profits

• MAPS, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, was founded in 1986 and describes itself as a 501(c)(3) non-profit research and educational organisation. (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, 2026) It fully funded the first MDMA phase 3 trial from private donations and supplied the MDMA. (Nature Medicine, via PubMed Central, 2021)
• Heffter Research Institute was incorporated in New Mexico in 1993 as a non-profit scientific organisation and says it helps design, review and fund psilocybin studies. (Heffter Research Institute, 2026) It funded both the Hopkins and NYU cancer trials and the NYU alcohol trial. (Journal of Psychopharmacology, via PubMed Central, 2016; Journal of Psychopharmacology, via PubMed Central, 2016; JAMA Psychiatry, via PubMed Central, 2022)
• Usona Institute, co-founded in 2014 in Madison, Wisconsin, describes itself as a medical research organisation. (Usona Institute, 2026) It sponsored and funded the 104-person phase 2 psilocybin trial for major depression, and supplied psilocybin to the NYU alcohol trial. (JAMA, via PubMed Central, 2023; JAMA Psychiatry, via PubMed Central, 2022)
• Beckley Foundation is a UK charity founded by Amanda Feilding that lists research programmes with Imperial, Maastricht and other institutions. (Beckley Foundation, 2026)

Companies

Drug developers now sponsor the trials meant to support approval. COMPASS Pathways funded the 233-person phase 2 trial of its synthetic psilocybin, COMP360, and says it expects to complete a rolling new drug application in the fourth quarter of 2026; that is a pending application, not an approval. (New England Journal of Medicine, 2022; COMPASS Pathways plc, via SEC EDGAR, 5 Aug 2026)

The MDMA programme moved from charity to company. MAPS set up MAPS Public Benefit Corporation as a subsidiary, and in January 2024 it was renamed Lykos Therapeutics after a Series A of more than 100 million dollars, with MAPS appointing six of the eight board members. (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, 5 Jan 2024) The FDA declined Lykos's application in August 2024 and asked for another phase 3 trial. (Lykos Therapeutics (press release), 9 Aug 2024; eCFR (Office of the Federal Register), current) Registry records follow these changes: ClinicalTrials.gov now lists the first MDMA phase 3 trial's lead sponsor as Resilient Pharmaceuticals, an industry sponsor, although the paper names MAPS. (ClinicalTrials.gov, 2026; Nature Medicine, via PubMed Central, 2021)

For more on that trial programme, see MDMA for PTSD.

Public funders

Public funders now pay for some trials. NIH's RePORTER database shows a NIDA cooperative agreement to Johns Hopkins, starting 30 September 2021, for a trial of psilocybin in tobacco use disorder. (NIH RePORTER, 30 Sep 2021) The US Department of Veterans Affairs announced in December 2024 that it would fund a study of MDMA-assisted therapy for veterans with PTSD and alcohol use disorder, about 1.5 million dollars over five years. (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 3 Dec 2024)

What each kind of sponsor tends to study

The three kinds of sponsor ask different questions.

Academic groups have tended to run small, early studies that open a new question: a pilot in 15 smokers, a 10-person proof-of-concept study in alcohol dependence, or brain-imaging work in healthy volunteers. (Journal of Psychopharmacology, 2014; Journal of Psychopharmacology, 2015; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012) These studies are cheap enough for philanthropy to fund, but they are too small to settle whether a treatment works.

Drug developers run the larger, multi-site trials that regulators require, built around one formulation and one diagnosis. The COMPASS trial tested a proprietary synthetic psilocybin in treatment-resistant depression at sites in Europe and North America, and the Usona trial ran at 11 US sites. (New England Journal of Medicine, 2022; JAMA, via PubMed Central, 2023) The primary outcome and its timepoint are chosen with approval in mind.

Public funders choose questions that matter to their own patients: the VA study focuses on veterans with both PTSD and alcohol use disorder. (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 3 Dec 2024)

How to read who funded a study

Four places tell you who paid and what they controlled.

1. The funding statement in the full text. It often differs from the headline. The 2016 Hopkins cancer trial was paid for by Heffter, the RiverStyx Foundation and private donors; an NIH grant covered only part of the lead author's time writing the paper. (Journal of Psychopharmacology, via PubMed Central, 2016)
2. The role of the funder. Usona designed its trial, oversaw the contract research organisation, interpreted the data and wrote the manuscript. (JAMA, via PubMed Central, 2023) Heffter reviewed the NYU alcohol trial's protocol but, the authors say, played no role in running it. (JAMA Psychiatry, via PubMed Central, 2022) Neither is wrong, but they are different levels of control.
3. Competing interests. In the first MDMA phase 3 paper, several authors were employed by MAPS or its company. (Nature Medicine, via PubMed Central, 2021) In the Hopkins cancer trial, the lead author disclosed a seat on Heffter's board. (Journal of Psychopharmacology, via PubMed Central, 2016)
4. The registry record. On ClinicalTrials.gov the lead sponsor is the organisation responsible for the study, and collaborators are listed separately. The Hopkins tobacco trial lists the university as lead sponsor and NIDA as a collaborator. (ClinicalTrials.gov, 2026) ClinicalTrials.gov notes that a listing does not mean the government has evaluated the study. (U.S. National Library of Medicine (NIH), Oct 2023)

Two traps are common. Grant numbers in a PubMed record can be infrastructure grants: the Usona trial's record lists an NIH clinical-science grant, yet the paper says Usona sponsored and funded it. (JAMA, via PubMed Central, 2023) And the setting may not belong to the university named: in Stanford's ibogaine study, the drug was given at a clinic in Mexico, Stanford played no role in giving it, and a veterans' non-profit paid participants' travel. (Nature Medicine, via PubMed Central, 2024)

What this means for you

Funding does not make a result false, and sponsors of every kind have published disappointing results: in the COMPASS trial the 10 mg dose did not differ significantly from 1 mg, and Imperial's comparison with escitalopram missed its primary outcome. (New England Journal of Medicine, 2022; New England Journal of Medicine, 2021) It does tell you who chose the comparison, the outcome and the wording. Before joining a study, ask who the sponsor is, what it pays for and what happens after the trial ends. The recruiting trials list shows each trial's sponsor as registered, and the research library links to each paper so you can read its funding section yourself.