As psychedelic medicine is having a renaissance, the potential for breakthroughs in mental health treatment and addiction recovery is clear. Substances like psilocybin, LSD and Ibogaine were banned or stigmatized, but are now being legitimized through research. These substances because of their profound effect on the brain are showing promise in treating not only trauma, anxiety and depression but also addiction when traditional methods have failed. And now in this changing landscape an emerging controversy has arisen—the patenting of psychedelic compounds and treatments by private individuals, especially tech billionaires like Sergey Brin.
Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, has been reported to be patenting Ibogaine, a powerful psychedelic that can treat addiction. This has sparked intense debates about corporate ownership, monopolization and ethics. The psychedelic community, historically communal and egalitarian, is torn about the increasing encroachment of profit driven ventures into a space that is about healing, personal growth and inclusivity.
This article goes deep into Brin’s involvement in the psychedelic biotech space, the controversy around patenting natural psychedelics and the clash between corporate interests and grassroots advocacy for accessible and ethical psychedelic medicine. Can tech enter this space and support wider adoption or will it change the dynamic and restrict access and commodify culturally significant substances like Ibogaine?
1. Psychedelic Medicine and the Current Landscape
Psychedelic medicine is having a renaissance and is being recognized by many as a way to treat a wide range of conditions including depression, anxiety, PTSD and addiction. Notable in this is the development of therapies based on substances like psilocybin (from mushrooms), LSD and Ibogaine which have been used spiritually or ceremonially in indigenous cultures for centuries but were banned during the 20th century’s War on Drugs.
Research has rekindled interest in these substances. Clinical trials have shown they can be transformative by producing significant and lasting changes in patients after one or two sessions. This scientific breakthrough could change the way we treat mental health but it also raises complicated questions about who will control access to these treatments. Once seen in the context of open, educational and decriminalization focused frameworks, psychedelic treatments are now the subject of patent and corporate control.
This has created a tension between the values that gave rise to modern psychedelic therapy advocacy—often around accessibility, inclusivity and communal benefit—and more capitalist driven interests. The question is will corporate patents on naturally occurring psychedelic substances like Ibogaine derail broad based access to affordable psychedelic therapy?
What is Ibogaine and Its Therapeutic Potential for Opioid Addiction?
Ibogaine is a naturally occurring psychoactive compound found in the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, a plant native to West Africa. Historically it has been used as part of initiation rites and spiritual rituals by the Bwiti people who revere Ibogaine for its mind altering properties and the deep insights it offers during intense often multi-day psychedelic experiences. The use of Ibogaine in religious and ceremonial contexts is a testament to its deep cultural and spiritual significance to the indigenous communities that have used it for centuries.
In the medical world Ibogaine has been getting attention for its ability to treat addiction especially opioid dependence. By acting on serotonin, glutamate and opioid receptors in the brain Ibogaine induces a state of mind where individuals reflect deeply on their emotional and psychological state—a introspective journey often described as cathartic. Many addicts report significant reduction in cravings and withdrawal symptoms after Ibogaine treatment. Studies on ibogaine treatment outcomes have shown long term effects like reduction in addiction severity and sustained decrease in opioid use over a 12 month period. Some call it a “miracle cure” for addiction but more research and controlled clinical settings are needed to prove its long term efficacy.
For centuries substances like Ibogaine were seen through non commercial lenses as a communal or spiritual resource to foster growth, healing and understanding. Today biotech companies and venture capitalists see parallels between Ibogaine’s addiction therapy potential and other highly patented medications. And that’s where the current controversy lies: who will own the rights and access to these treatments shaped by centuries old practices and recent research?
Sergey Brin in the Psychoactive Indole Alkaloid Ibogaine Biotech Space
One of the most well known to enter the psychedelic medicine space is Sergey Brin. As co-founder of Google he’s a technology driven entrepreneur and now he’s turned his attention to the psychedelic therapeutics space. Specifically he’s been involved with a biotech startup focused on commercializing and patenting Ibogaine based treatments especially for addiction. A single Ibogaine treatment has been shown to have long term effects on addiction severity and withdrawal symptoms resulting in significant reduction in drug use and emotional distress over a 12 month period.
While on the surface Brin’s involvement might seem like an endorsement of psychedelic therapy his focus on patenting Ibogaine has raised many red flags in the psychedelic community. At the heart of the concern is will Brin’s commercialization create a form of “Big Tech” ownership that will limit access to the treatment for those who can’t afford it. Since the core of the psychedelic spaces is decriminalization, communal growth and open access Brin’s moves are the opposite of that.
The conflict between these two models—a grassroots, open access model of psychedelic healing and a corporate driven, profit motivated model—raises many questions about what the future of psychedelic medicine will look like as it goes mainstream. Will modalities like Ibogaine be accessible to the masses or will the involvement of billionaires and big corporations make them out of reach for many?
4. Why Advocates Are Skeptical: The Opposition to Patenting Natural Psychedelics
Psychedelic advocates and indigenous rights activists are opposed to patenting substances like Ibogaine for several reasons. Mainly because many believe that nature derived substances should belong to humanity as a whole not to private companies. Ibogaine is not a novel molecule developed in a lab through research—its a natural alkaloid that has been used for centuries.
By patenting these substances companies like those associated with Sergey Brin could gain exclusive rights to its distribution, manufacture and sale and stifle competition and monopolize access to a treatment that many people struggling with addiction desperately need. Critics call this “biopiracy”—the commercialization of natural biological products often without compensating or acknowledging the indigenous communities that have used them for centuries.
Furthermore beyond Ibogaine itself the bigger fear among advocates is the setting of a precedent where other psychedelics could be patented. Substances like psilocybin, ayahuasca, peyote, DMT or even San Pedro cacti all of which have deep cultural significance to different indigenous groups could become targets for commercialization. If billionaires and biotech corporations monopolize access to these plant medicines indigenous knowledge and cultural identity will further erode and harm these communities spiritually and economically.
Beyond the moral issue this commercialization of psychedelics will make treatments unaffordable for those who need them and replicate the same problems in traditional healthcare. Psychedelics are already showing so much promise in treating conditions like addiction and corporate ownership will make them in some cases further out of reach for those already marginalized by healthcare inequalities.
5. The Legal and Ethical Dilemmas of Biotech Patents on Natural Compounds
In biotech patenting is standard practice. Patents protect a company’s intellectual property so that the investment in researching, developing and bringing a medication to market can yield a profit. In return companies argue that without this protection they would have no incentive to invest in expensive and long trials and regulatory procedures.
But when it comes to natural molecules like Ibogaine the issue of patents gets complicated. While Ibogaine and its extraction methods may involve complex biochemical research the molecule itself was never synthesized from scratch it emerged from nature. So many argue that giving a corporation ownership over a naturally occurring compound or its derivative is an infringement on the very idea of shared access to natural medicine.
Furthermore the ethical question arises: is it right for those most disconnected from the traditional or indigenous uses of these substances (like wealthy tech billionaires) to claim them in a way that limits future access and input from those that have stewarded these practices for centuries? The existing patent laws do not address these deep seated ethical issues and leave room for exploitation.
At the core of this issue is the question of balance: can patent law adapt to naturally occurring compounds like Ibogaine or will it continue to lag and reinforce systems that benefit big corporations at the expense of marginalized communities?
Accessibility, Cost and Ibogaine Treatment Outcomes
The main reason for the opposition to these patents is accessibility. Psychedelic therapies are already out of reach for many due to their prohibition in several countries. Those without access to underground psychedelic guides often find medical tourism (traveling to places where psychedelics are legal) too expensive. If the only available psychedelic therapy is from commercial ventures like Brin’s Ibogaine treatment prices will go up even more due to market monopolization.
Consider the pharmaceutical industry’s much criticized pricing models for medications like insulin or EpiPens—essential treatments that have seen prices skyrocket due to lack of competition. A similar scenario in the psychedelic space will create huge barriers to access for those who need it.
Moreover the people who would benefit most from Ibogaine’s role in addiction recovery, like people struggling with opioid addiction, are often the most economically vulnerable. Ibogaine has shown promise in alleviating opioid withdrawal symptoms but the high cost will make it inaccessible to those who need it most. For them the high cost and restricted access is more than just an inconvenience—it’s a life or death obstacle. This will exacerbate the existing treatment gap and push those who can’t afford commercial therapy towards dangerous street drugs or other unregulated options.
In effect patenting naturally occurring psychedelic compounds will further cement economic and racial inequalities and make it harder for underserved populations to benefit from psychedelic therapies.
7. Tech in Psychedelics: What does this mean for the future?
If Sergey Brin’s involvement in psychedelic medicine was an isolated incident it would be easier to dismiss under a specific set of circumstances. But Brin’s actions are part of a bigger trend: Silicon Valley technologists, investors and entrepreneurs are getting more involved in psychedelic therapies. Venture capitalists are pouring millions into startups developing proprietary methods for producing, distributing and administering psychedelic compounds.
Peter Thiel another tech billionaire has invested heavily in Compass Pathways a company researching synthetic psilocybin. Other venture backed companies include Aura Health, Atai Life Sciences and Mind Medicine all of which are focused on psychedelic research and commercialization. What was once the domain of underground societies and small non profit networks is being transformed by big institutional investment.
In some ways this influx of capital is speeding up the research, clinical trials and potential legalization of psychedelic therapies. More money means faster clinical trials, better research facilities and more lobbying power to push regulators to approve in countries like the US, UK and Canada where psychedelics are tightly controlled. Legal and medical validation of psychedelics will mean less stigma and more overall acceptance. Anecdotal reports of veterans experiencing significant improvements in their condition after taking ibogaine have prompted further research into its clinical and neurobiological effects.
But there’s speculation within the community whether private capital has a different end game—a profit driven agenda vs the original goal of the psychedelic movement which was personal healing and collective wellbeing.
Will this future shaped by tech backed pharma control stifle the inclusivity and transparency that the psychedelic revival promised?
8. Mushroom Cultivation and Psychedelics: Connecting Communities and Solutions for Inclusivity
One counterpoint to the corporate interest in psychedelics is the mushroom cultivation culture. Psilocybin mushrooms can be grown at home or shared within small communities and have created a decentralized network of enthusiasts who want to make psychedelics accessible to all without corporate oversight.
This is what decentralization looks like in the psychedelic space. Instead of commodities to be pursued and patented by corporations mushrooms grown within communal networks are not subject to price gouging and limited access. Open sharing of growing techniques and the availability of growing kits has allowed people to access psilocybin outside of legal constraints in many parts of the world and push back against pharma control.
And this model can be applied to other areas of the psychedelic space. By open sourcing knowledge, creating underground treatment networks and advocating for personal sovereignty over plant based medicine communities can resist corporate control and support wider and more affordable access.
As we move forward the support for models like mushroom cultivation may be one of the best ways to promote inclusivity in psychedelic medicine.
9. Indigenous Rights and Cultural Appropriation: A Long standing issue with Psychedelics
Tied to the patent issue is the issue of indigenous rights and who controls natural substances like Ibogaine, psilocybin and ayahuasca. Indigenous communities have used these substances in spiritual, religious and therapeutic contexts for thousands of years. The commercialization of these medicines happens without consulting or compensating these communities for their knowledge or practices.
The commercialization of psychedelics is a microcosm of the broader issue of cultural appropriation. Western corporations have profited from traditional medicine without giving back to the indigenous communities that have been the custodians. Consider turmeric’s healing properties being patented or yoga being commercialized—both examples where indigenous practices became lucrative in the Western world without proper payment or credit to the original practitioners.
Similarly psychedelics used in indigenous healing rituals like Ayahuasca in the Amazon or Ibogaine in West Africa are falling into the same pattern of extraction without respect or compensation. Ibogaine has been studied for its potential to treat traumatic brain injury (TBI) and has shown promise in alleviating neuropsychiatric symptoms and improving functioning in those affected. When a psychoactive compound like Ibogaine already central to traditional healing practices becomes a patented medical treatment it simultaneously strips away the spiritual and cultural meanings and denies those traditional users the right to control its distribution.
To avoid repeating the history of exploitation that has harmed indigenous communities for centuries advocates say any discussion about the use of psychedelic substances in modern medicine must include indigenous voices. There needs to be a collaborative effort to compensate these communities for their knowledge and to ensure their cultural and spiritual practices are respected not exploited into purely medical or commercial frameworks.
10. Patent Protection vs Public Interest
The development of ibogaine as a treatment for opioid dependence and other substance use disorders raises the question of patent protection and public interest. On one hand patent protection can incentivize innovation and investment in research and development by allowing companies to recoup their costs and profit from their discoveries. On the other hand patent protection can limit access to life saving treatments by creating monopolies and driving up costs.
In the case of ibogaine the patent landscape is complicated and evolving. Some companies have filed patents for ibogaine based treatments others have argued that ibogaine is a natural product that can’t be patented. The US Patent and Trademark Office has granted patents for certain ibogaine based treatments but these patents are being challenged by some advocates who say they are too broad and stifle innovation.
As research on ibogaine continues to move forward it’s essential to balance patent protection and public interest. This can be done through patent pools, open-source research collaborations and public-private partnerships. By working together researchers, policymakers and industry leaders can ensure ibogaine based treatments are developed and made available in a way that benefits both the public and private sector. (Keep keywords: opioid dependence, substance use disorders)
10. Patents in Psychedelic Medicine Innovation: Double-edged Sword or Necessary Evil?
While community advocates see patenting of natural substances as a problem some argue patent protection is a necessary component in advancing medical research and getting these treatments to patients faster. Without the financial resources of entities like biotech companies or individual investors governments and nonprofits may not have the funds to support the extensive clinical trials that in psychedelic medicine can take years or even decades to complete.
For those who support corporate involvement patents aren’t a threat but a necessary tool to ensure investment. Legal protection allows companies to recoup their substantial costs of getting these drugs approved—lab research to navigating FDA regulations. Patent backed incentive structures have been the backbone of pharmaceutical development for decades.
And household acceptance of psychedelic treatments (as opposed to stigmatization) will likely require regulatory bodies like the FDA or EMA to get involved in this space and make them legally available. In this scenario proponents argue only large well funded entities that can afford clinical trials will be able to shepherd psychedelic compounds through these rigorous channels.
But even with that there’s the ethical consideration. Will a corporate driven psychedelic future keep the deeper healing ethos or spiritual context of psychedelic medicine or will psychedelics just become an expensive regulated commodity like any other drug?
12. Future of Psychedelic Medicine Research
Ibogaine and other psychedelic research is a fast moving field that holds great promise for the treatment of many mental health conditions including opioid use disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. As research moves forward we will see new ibogaine based treatments and the exploration of other psychedelic compounds for therapeutic use.
One of the biggest challenges in psychedelic medicine research is the need for more clinical trials. While early results are promising larger and more rigorous trials are needed to prove safety and efficacy of ibogaine and other psychedelic compounds.
Another challenge is the need for more investment in research and development. Some private companies and philanthropic organizations are investing in psychedelic medicine research but more is needed to develop new treatments and to explore the full potential of these compounds.
Despite all that the future of psychedelic medicine research looks good. With the growing awareness of the benefits of ibogaine and other psychedelic compounds we will see more investment and innovation in this space in the coming years. As research moves forward we must prioritize safe effective and accessible treatments for those who need them. (Keep keywords: post traumatic stress disorder, opioid use disorder, opioid use)
11. Psychedelic Advocacy and Decriminalization: A Cultural War
As the conversation around psychedelics unfolds we are living through a cultural war between two opposing ideologies—those who see psychedelic compounds as sacred substances that belong to all of humanity and those who see them as any other medication subject to intellectual property and market forces.
Decriminalization efforts worldwide are pushing for the freedom to use psychedelics for personal or communal healing. For decriminalization advocates the focus is on self exploration, autonomy and harm reduction—not profit. Regions like Oregon are already moving forward with frameworks for the regulated use and administration of psilocybin through approved facilitators—already one possible alternative to the biotech dominated model.
On the other side many in the medical community argue that bringing psychedelics through regulated bodies is necessary to ensure patient safety and avoid the excesses of the unregulated underground.
But how will these models collide as corporate figures like Sergey Brin move into psychedelic medicine? Will corporate backed psychedelic medicine push back decriminalization efforts as governments try to regulate and tax this new market? Will this changing landscape threaten the progress made by community based grassroots organizations that are fighting for open access to plant based medicines?
How Can We Get Ethical and Accessible Psychedelic Medicine for Substance Use Disorders?
Equitable and inclusive access to psychedelic medicines requires grassroots advocacy and policy that prevents monopolization and commodification by big corporations. Ongoing research and clinical trials on the psychoactive indole alkaloid ibogaine show its potential to treat opioid use disorder so we must include these substances in the conversation. Psychedelic activism can align with broader social justice movements to get access to substance assisted therapies for everyone especially those who have been marginalized by the healthcare system.
Here are some ways to get ethical access:
-
Support Decriminalization – Rather than only focusing on medicalization as the only way to access psychedelics decriminalization allows individuals to grow or cultivate these substances personally without legal penalty. This keeps psychedelic therapy in the hands of the people.
-
Open Source, Community Driven Solutions – Just as mushroom cultivation took off as a grassroots movement with shared resources and guidance, similar could happen with Ibogaine and other plant based psychedelics. Knowledge about growing or using these substances can remain open source not corporate owned.
-
Respect and Involve Indigenous Knowledge Holders – Corporations shouldn’t plunder and appropriate sacred plant medicines without accountability or consent. Psychedelic activists and corporations alike must advocate for frameworks that involve indigenous knowledge holders, respect intellectual sovereignty and benefit sharing mechanisms for the communities that first discovered these medicines.
-
Lobby for Non-Profit/Alternative Models of Psychedelic Research – Foundations, universities and non-profits can continue to promote psychedelic medicine without being dependent on for profit incentives. By advocating and supporting more diverse funding models we can ensure corporations don’t remove psychedelics from the reach of patients entirely.
By supporting legal, financial and cultural frameworks that keep access open we can make sure psychedelics remain available to those who need them most.
13. Conclusion: Psychedelics in a Commercial Tech World
As Sergey Brin enters the Ibogaine biotech space we are on uncharted territory. The stakes are high for real progress in psychedelic medicine and for the commodification and monopolization of traditional plant medicines.
Private interest and corporate attempts to patent substances like Ibogaine could drive innovation and speed up clinical trials and legalization. But it could also push psychedelic medicine away from its roots in community healing, decriminalization and open access to high cost and corporate control.
As we move forward we must support organizations and models that prioritize inclusivity, affordability and indigenous rights. Whether that means advocating for decriminalization, community driven approaches or regulatory measures to protect access there’s an opportunity to create a psychedelic future that honors its spiritual and communal roots not just profit.
14. Take Action: What can you do?
If you want to stop the commercialization of psychedelics and keep these medicines available to those who need them most there are several things you can do today:
-
Support Non-Profit Organizations that focus on psychedelic accessibility, equity and indigenous rights like MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) or ICEERS (International Center for Ethnobotanical Education, Research, and Service).
-
Advocate for Local Decriminalization – Get involved in your community to push for policies that would allow individual and open access to psychedelics, outside of commercial models.
-
Spread Grassroots Psychedelic Education – Open source learning whether you start a local psychedelic society or share DIY mushroom cultivation knowledge.
-
Explore Alternative Models – Support community based Ibogaine treatment, underground psychedelic retreats or indigenous practices under ethical frameworks.
Keeping psychedelic medicine accessible requires everyone – conscious consumers, social justice advocates and the psychedelic community to be on the same page.
Summary
-
Psychedelics are being pharmaceuticalized because they can treat hard to treat conditions like opioid addiction, depression and anxiety.
-
Ibogaine has great potential for addiction treatment but its cultural roots and indigenous use makes it complicated to commercialize.
-
Sergey Brin’s involvement in the Ibogaine biotech space and his attempts to patent it have raised concerns about the monopolization of natural psychedelics.
-
Patents on naturally occurring substances are problematic because they limit access to affordable treatments and exploit traditional knowledge without fair compensation or respect to indigenous communities.
-
Corporate involvement will commodify plant medicines at the expense of the grassroots, community driven approach that has always been at the heart of the psychedelic freedom and therapy movement.
-
Decriminalization, indigenous rights and non-profit models is the way to go for equity.
-
We need to innovate through research but not at the expense of corporate exploitation that only makes it available to those who can pay.
