Hi Matt. I couldn't agree more with your core values statement. The situation here is a bit more complex (and less nefarious) than recent coverage suggests. The small band of Oregon psychedelic researchers who form OPEN seek to support successful implementation of Measure 109. In addition to the core values you mention, we hold confidentiality, privacy, and autonomy as pre-eminent. We do not support mandatory/required data reporting or those who seek to monetize information on the Oregon experience. We believe that getting at any big truths requires a non-dualistic approach that simultaneously honors personal experience, community fabric, and rigorous, voluntary evaluation. Confidential collection of de-identified, encrypted information on client experiences, independent from government or commercial interests, is how we will know if Measure 109 achieves the ideal of improving public wellbeing and equity that we are all working toward. I would be happy to discuss with you. Thank you for helping keep Oregon on track.
Your comment makes the point of my essay precisely. For starters, lengthy, jargon, buzzword packed answers like this (for example, in a deposition), usually tell me all I need to know. The issue is simple. It should not take many characters to answer forthrightly: do you support mandatory data collection?
You say confidentiality, privacy, and autonomy are "preeminent." But something is "preeminent" when that thing surpasses all others. If confidentiality, privacy, and autonomy were "preeminent" considerations, as you claim, then OPEN wouldn't support collecting client data--at all. That is because collecting and centralizing data, even "de-identified" data, doesn't further confidentiality, privacy, or autonomy and increases risk for clients. Instead, what is preeminent is "getting at ... big truths." Hence, my precise point: psychedelics as a value; the program is a social experiment; and clients are becoming data points in the experiment.
I note you state that OPEN does not support "mandatory/required data REPORTING" (emphasis mine). That choice of word obfuscates the issue: data COLLECTION and centralization. Actually, I'm totally fine with monetizing data collection in connection with government or commercial interests--as long as individuals have a choice and consent. Monetizing data based on consent is a better model than what the proposed legislation mandates.
I would be happy to debate this further and formally in a public forum, but frankly, Mason is probably better informed and more qualified.
Hi Matt, I totally agree with you! I would never set my foot in psilocybin clinic in Oregon if they were going to collect all that data on me. Never. I would rather prefer to stay underground - and private. Todd, Oslo, Norway
Hi Matt. I couldn't agree more with your core values statement. The situation here is a bit more complex (and less nefarious) than recent coverage suggests. The small band of Oregon psychedelic researchers who form OPEN seek to support successful implementation of Measure 109. In addition to the core values you mention, we hold confidentiality, privacy, and autonomy as pre-eminent. We do not support mandatory/required data reporting or those who seek to monetize information on the Oregon experience. We believe that getting at any big truths requires a non-dualistic approach that simultaneously honors personal experience, community fabric, and rigorous, voluntary evaluation. Confidential collection of de-identified, encrypted information on client experiences, independent from government or commercial interests, is how we will know if Measure 109 achieves the ideal of improving public wellbeing and equity that we are all working toward. I would be happy to discuss with you. Thank you for helping keep Oregon on track.
Todd,
Thanks for engaging on this.
Your comment makes the point of my essay precisely. For starters, lengthy, jargon, buzzword packed answers like this (for example, in a deposition), usually tell me all I need to know. The issue is simple. It should not take many characters to answer forthrightly: do you support mandatory data collection?
You say confidentiality, privacy, and autonomy are "preeminent." But something is "preeminent" when that thing surpasses all others. If confidentiality, privacy, and autonomy were "preeminent" considerations, as you claim, then OPEN wouldn't support collecting client data--at all. That is because collecting and centralizing data, even "de-identified" data, doesn't further confidentiality, privacy, or autonomy and increases risk for clients. Instead, what is preeminent is "getting at ... big truths." Hence, my precise point: psychedelics as a value; the program is a social experiment; and clients are becoming data points in the experiment.
I note you state that OPEN does not support "mandatory/required data REPORTING" (emphasis mine). That choice of word obfuscates the issue: data COLLECTION and centralization. Actually, I'm totally fine with monetizing data collection in connection with government or commercial interests--as long as individuals have a choice and consent. Monetizing data based on consent is a better model than what the proposed legislation mandates.
I would be happy to debate this further and formally in a public forum, but frankly, Mason is probably better informed and more qualified.
Matt
For those reading this exchange, I would encourage reading Todd's column on Lucid here: https://www.lucid.news/oregon-psychedelic-data-legalization/.
Hi Matt, I totally agree with you! I would never set my foot in psilocybin clinic in Oregon if they were going to collect all that data on me. Never. I would rather prefer to stay underground - and private. Todd, Oslo, Norway