by Greg Marley
It is important to note, however, that there is a very real danger in confusing a psilocybin-containing species for a poisonous and potentially deadly mushroom such as species of Galerina, Conocybe, or Inocybe. All four groups are populated with little brown mushrooms (LBMs), small, undistinguished mushrooms with dark gills and brown to black spore prints found growing on lawns, in gardens, and in the forest. LBMs lack truly distinctive features that set them apart from the crowd, just like most Psilocybe mushrooms. The deadly Galerina (Galerina autumnalis) and a few related species can be found fruiting on wood in spring and fall and are called deadly for a good reason. They contain small amounts of the same amatoxin found in the flesh of the death cap (Amanita phalloides). Though by some estimates it would take upward of fifty Galerina to kill the average adult, those who use psilocybin mushrooms recreationally often consume many mushrooms in seeking a high. The small, ring-stalked Conocybe filaris, or deadly Conocybe, is similarly deadly poisonous, easily confused with other LBMs, and found growing in grassy areas or in landscaped beds. Though not common in northern New England, I found this deadly species growing in the wood mulch at my local health club one recent autumn.
The Legal Status of Psilocybin in the
United States and around the World
U.S. federal law in 1971 classified the two primary active components in magic mushrooms, psilocybin and psilocin, as Schedule I substances under the Controlled Substances Act without specifically mentioning the mushrooms containing those compounds. Later case law clarified that the mushrooms are considered containers of the active compounds and are therefore also illegal to possess, buy, or distribute without a specific DEA license. An interesting loophole developed, however, with the recognition that the spores of psilocybin-containing mushrooms do not themselves contain psilocybin. That means people who pursue these mushrooms for recreational use have access to the raw material needed to cultivate the mushrooms. Starting with viable spores and some basic mushroom cultivation skills, it is relatively easy to grow some species of psilocybin-containing mushrooms. As with almost anything from solar plumbing to nuclear submarines, the information is readily available on the Internet. Although California, Georgia, and Idaho have made possession of psilocybin mushroom spores illegal, most states have not, and a thriving underground trade has developed in the sale of spores, cultivation materials, and the social networking to support the activity. Just how the purveyors of spores manufacture or otherwise obtain a salable product without breaking federal law by possessing psilocybin-containing mycelium and fruiting bodies is a bit confusing, but the trade continues nevertheless. Under a strict interpretation of federal law, many suburban homeowners could face charges of possession based on the wild mycoflora in their lawns and gardens. My own efforts to collect and identify the new species found recently in Maine also would be illegal based on an inflexible interpretation of law. The good news is that there is no history of law enforcement taking such an aggressive stance, and few police have the skills in mushroom identification to support it.
Unlike many other illicit drugs, hallucinogenic fungi and plants were not covered in a broad U.N. action on drugs enacted in 1971, in part due to the recognition that a number of these plants are commonly found growing in public places and enforcement would be a nightmare. It was left up to individual countries to create legal language and enforcement to cover their needs. Following the U.S. ban, several European countries remained fairly open to mushroom use and possession, most notably the Netherlands, where mushrooms could be purchased at licensed Cannabis Cafes and “Smart Shops” that also sell marijuana.25 Over the past five years, however, in response to some alarming reports of abuse of psilocybin and other hallucinogenics in the club scene across Europe, almost all countries have banned possession or sale of psychedelic mushrooms. The Netherlands became the final European country to enact such laws in October 2008. In the United Kingdom, hallucinogenic mushrooms became illegal to possess or sell in 2005 and approval of the law hinged on the inclusion of language clarifying that homeowners would be protected from prosecution for the chance natural occurrence of magic mushrooms in their bit of garden.
Psilocybin Research Coming of Age
Three decades after psilocybin and other hallucinogens fell from grace amid the crazy days of the late 1960s, there has been a resurgence in research into the use of psychedelic compounds in the United States and Europe. In 2006, a report was published detailing the results of an elegantly designed and carefully executed study involving the application of a controlled dose of psilocybin as a method to induce profound mystical experience. The study, which was carried out at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, involved thirty-six adult volunteers, all without prior experience of hallucinogens and carefully screened for psychological stability and the regular practice of some form of religious, contemplative, or meditative practice.26 The protocol included careful preparation to set a stage for the subjects to have a positive experience and was held in rigorously controlled circumstances involving a carefully designed, living room-like setting, medical monitoring, and the use of two trained and experienced guides to accompany the volunteers and support them during their experiences under the influence of the drug.
In many ways, this study was an updated replication of Pahnke’s Good Friday Experiment with a more rigorous set of controls, evaluations, and standards. Volunteers were randomly chosen to receive either synthetic psilocybin or methylphenidate (Ritalin) as a control. The sessions were repeated at two-month intervals with the other compound so each person experienced both active drug and control. Interestingly, in this study, neither volunteers nor their guides knew that both compounds would be administered or the order of administration. The control group volunteers received two sessions with Ritalin followed by a third, unblinded session with psilocybin. In this way the controls were the only participants who knew without doubt they had received psilocybin and when. All sessions were conducted individually with the single subject monitored by both a male and female monitor. The primary monitor was a clinical psychologist who had previously monitored more than 500 sessions of entheogen therapy dating back to the 1960s. He met with each volunteer several times before the initial session to build comfort, a clear set of expectations, and a sense of confidence, all of which have been shown to reduce the incidence of negative experiences.27 He also met with volunteers after the session to assist in the processing of their experience. All volunteers completed several standardized questionnaires immediately following the experience that were used to measure a number of aspects of each session including those related to mystical experience and the degree to which the experience compared to others they had. In addition, each volunteer was asked to designate three adults in their lives to rate changes in the participant’s attitudes and behavior following the experience. A graduate assistant who had not met the participants and therefore had no biased impressions of the individual volunteers interviewed each designated adult following the experiment.
The results of this study as measured in interviews and questionnaires at a two-month interval from the experience revealed that 67 percent of the participants rated their experience of the session in which they were administered psilocybin as either the single most meaningful experience of their lifetime (10 percent) or among the top five experiences of their life (55 percent). The Ritalin experiences rated top five for less than 10 percent of participants and none rated the experience as the most meaningful. In addition, 33 percent rated the psilocybin experience as the most spiritually significant experience in their lifetime and 38 percent among the top five spiritual experiences.28 From the control group, 8 percent rated their experience among the top five and none as the most significant spiritual experience. In a fourteen-month follow-up, the participants continued to score the experience with similarly high significance and all but one person was accurately able to identify their psilocybin session as reflected in a question about which session produced the most profound chan
ge in ordinary mental processes.29 In addition, the psilocybin experiences scored significantly higher on a scale measuring mysticism at both the two-month and fourteen-month follow-up. At the two-month point, twenty-two of thirty-six volunteers met the criteria for having experienced a “complete mystical experience” as did twenty-one of the thirty-six at fourteen months, a result that speaks to the temporal endurance of the participants’ reflection on their experience.
In addition to the renewal of psilocybin research into mystical experience, there have been a small but growing number of studies using psilocybin as an agent to address anxiety disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder,30 as well as major depression and various addictions.31 There is a growing interest in the use of hallucinogens to assist people with the anxiety and fear that can often accompany the end of life. Roland Griffiths and his team at Johns Hopkins are involved in such a study involving cancer patients. The idea is that a single dose of psilocybin or a similar hallucinogen can elicit an experience to greatly reduce the boundaries between self/ego and the whole of the universe. In many people, this instills a sense of oneness or unity with a greater whole or with God. This has had the effect of greatly reducing the fear of death for some people.
The field of psychedelic research, tainted by the abuse and negative press of the 1960s, is making a slow and very deliberately cautious comeback. The design of the studies, including safeguards for the participants and the use of double-blind controlled conditions, has added to the respect for and validity of the work. Because of the occasional occurrence of a “bad trip” in the 1960s, the concept of set and setting was developed describing a clinical context within which hallucinogen research and therapy should be done. Early on in the exploration and development of hallucinogen use in clinical settings, the most common negative events were the surge of anxiety, fear, and loss of control by people under the influence of hallucinogens, especially the very potent LSD. The more gentle and benign high produced by psilocybin or mescaline led to fewer “bad trips.” From the mistakes of the early years, an appreciation developed for the need to prepare people carefully for what to expect from being under the influence of a hallucinogen, referred to as the “set” or mind set, and the need to structure the physical environment, psychological, and social support for the journeyer carefully through the process, referred to as the “setting.”32 Though a number of pioneers contributed to this development, Timothy Leary and other members of the Harvard research project published the early work in the United States,33 detailing the need to attend to the “set and setting” of psilocybin or other hallucinogen use. Researchers have found that adequate support and preparation of their study subjects before, during, and after the administration of a hallucinogen leads to reduced events of paranoia and panic attacks and an increase in positive, valued experiences. Following their acclaimed recent study, the staff of the Johns Hopkins Psilocybin Research Studies Group developed a set of guidelines and suggested protocols for those designing human hallucinogen research that details the areas to consider and address when doing responsible studies with psilocybin. Following these guidelines may enable the new era of positive clinical applications of hallucinogens to continue.
PART V
MUSHROOMS WITHIN
LIVING ECOSYSTEMS
14
HONEY MUSHROOMS
The Race for the World’s Largest Fungus
You cannot find a mushroom without leaving the house.
TRADITIONAL RUSSIAN SAYING
I n April 1992, an unexpected headline shone from the pages of the New York Times: “Twin Crowns for 30-Acre Fungus: World’s Biggest, Oldest Organism.”1 The story that followed was based on an article published that day in the journal Nature, detailing the results of four years of research by a team of three biologists studying a plot of forest near Crystal Falls, Michigan. The researchers, Myron Smith and James Anderson of the University of Toronto and Johann Bruhn from Michigan Technological University, claimed to have discovered a mushroom-producing fungus of enormous proportions.2 Before long, this single colony of the common honey mushroom, Armillaria bulbosa, growing beneath the surface of the forest soil, garnered attention from around the world.
Although they initially set out to determine the genetic diversity of fungi growing within a given area of forest, and specifically to determine how to differentiate between individual colonies of a species of fungus in the forest, the team discovered that all the samples of Armillaria in an initial plot of 120 × 60 meters belonged to the same individual mycelial network. The team extended its sample area along a transect and still did not reach the limits of the genetic individual, referred to as a genet. Over the following years, they determined that the mycelial network of this single genet extended over a thirty-acre area. After estimating—conservatively by most accounts—the annual growth rate of the mycelium, the team determined that the fungus was between 1,500 and 10,000 years old, making it the oldest known living creature on Earth. They estimated the combined weight of all the fungal growth by weighing the mass of the honey mushroom mycelium contained in a measured area of soil and then extrapolating to the amount of soil in the surveyed area. They determined that the fungal mass was about 100 tons, approximately the same weight as a blue whale.
The biologists were completely unprepared for the barrage of media attention following publication of their results, as calls from media and glory-seekers came from around the continent and from across the world. According to Wisconsin mycologist Tom Volk, one Japanese businessman wanted to fund a boardwalk exhibit and charge people fees to view the giant fungus and CNN called to report that a jet was en route to the site and requested that one of the researchers be on the ground for aerial photographs of the mammoth fungus!3
Of course, what anyone standing in the midst of the world’s largest fungus would have seen was . . . a forest. With trees, shrubs, grasses, and flowers, it would have looked indistinguishable from any other thirty acres of forest in the area. If they happened to be there the previous September or October after a good soaking rain, they might have seen honey mushrooms fruiting singly and in scattered clusters across the forest floor—a sight nowhere near as impressive as a blue whale. Thrill-seeking customers touring a honey mushroom boardwalk exhibit would likely have been just that: bored.
Almost immediately following publication of the findings, rival claims to the title of the world’s oldest and largest fungus came flooding in. Almost twenty years earlier, two forest pathologists, Kenelm Russell and Terry Shaw, working in southwestern Washington studied a genet of a related honey mushroom, Armillaria ostoyae, which they reported as covering perhaps 1,500 acres. Russell and Shaw, who completed work on their humongous fungus in the 1970s, based their claim on a study of incompatible mating types, working from the premise that strands of mycelium from different individuals will not combine when growing together on agar medium, whereas strands from the same individual will grow together into one unit under the same conditions. The two collected sexually compatible samples of the fungus over an area encompassing a huge swath of forest—almost one and a half square miles. Some scientists reviewing the competing claims noted that Russell and Shaw had excellent aerial photos to support their claim but lacked the convincing genetic evidence of the Wisconsin study.4 Even today, the race for the biggest fungus continues. In 2000, another team of forest researchers reported the discovery of an individual fungus growing in the mountains of Oregon that dwarfs both prior claims. In a 2008 updated report on the area, the largest genet of A. ostoyae is reported to cover more than three and a half square miles or 2,385 acres and to be between 1,900 and 8,650 years old.5
These big fungal genets have raised even bigger questions about what defines an “individual,” especially in a fungus that spreads by mycelial growth through the forest soil when those almost-invisible colonies of mycelium have no defined shape or boundary. In other words, where does the growth of one individual end and a new indivi
dual begin? In the case of the Michigan honey mushroom, the researchers acknowledged that there were interruptions in the mycelial network of the fungus; it was not a continuous interconnected web. Though the islands of mycelium proved to be identical, they challenged the normal definition of an individual, which is characterized by a defining and limiting boundary. In humans, the limiting boundary is our skin. In a tomato plant, it encompasses all the roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and fruit. But if an organism doesn’t have skin or a stem, and in fact, doesn’t even have a determined growth pattern or shape, where does singularity end and plurality begin? It’s obvious where an elephant begins and ends and, if there were two genetically identical elephants, we would call them clones or identical twins, but they would certainly be considered separate individuals. The distinction is much less clear in the case of a fungus that grows outward in all directions as it seeks out available food and moisture, but might, over time, become isolated islands of growth in a larger sea of the forest ecosystem. If the space between these genetically identical or sexually compatible islands of growth is widely spaced with no known contiguous connection, are they still one individual? The questions raised by the thirty-acre fungus are monumental indeed and will likely provide rich fodder for debate for some time to come.