What Psychedelics Do

As an Episcopal priest, I read with curiosity Michael Pollan’s essay about recent research conducted at Johns Hopkins and N.Y.U. into religious leaders taking psychedelics (“High Priests,” May 26th). It shouldn’t be surprising that most of these test subjects reported an encounter with the Divine, given that they have devoted their lives to the pursuit of theological truths. I can see the value of psychedelic trips—certainly, clergy with a wide range of life experience have more wisdom to offer their communities. But I’m not sure that the trips will bring clergy closer to real spiritual maturity, which comes from grasping the Divine in other people—in the ordinary faces of the poor, and in the strangers among us. Psychedelics, even when used in pursuit of enlightenment, induce an isolated, individual experience that is ultimately antithetical to that of the Communion table of bread and wine, where all are welcome, and all are nourished with the same Substance.

The Reverend Alice Grant
Annapolis, Md.

Expert Choices

Daniel Immerwahr’s essay about the backlash against expertise and the rise of contrarians such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., comes off as an apologia for Kennedy’s anti-scientific posturing in his role as Secretary of H.H.S. (A Critic at Large, May 26th). To call Kennedy’s skepticism the mark of a “scientific mind” misrepresents both science and Kennedy. In science, hypotheses are tested against evidence; Kennedy starts with conclusions and cherry-picks data that fit. He dismisses the overwhelming evidence debunking any link between vaccines and autism, citing the Institute of Medicine in a way that misrepresents its findings.

Kennedy’s pattern is consistent: he rejects research that contradicts his narrative, spreads misinformation about vaccine safety, and even questions the germ theory of disease. His claim that no childhood vaccines were tested against inert placebos is demonstrably false, as Senator Bill Cassidy pointed out during Kennedy’s confirmation hearings.

When Kennedy peddled anti-vaccine rhetoric as a private citizen, it was irresponsible. As H.H.S. Secretary, it’s dangerous. Today, while preventable diseases are spreading, he continues to erode trust in vaccination and public health. His invocation of science is purely rhetorical—he follows it only when it leads where he already wants to go. Americans deserve better.

Eliot Brenowitz
Professor Emeritus
Department of Biology
University of Washington
Seattle, Wash.

Immerwahr offers a refreshing reckoning with some of the establishment’s policy missteps during the early stages of the COVID pandemic. As a liberal, I have come across few clear-eyed considerations of liberal officials’ policies in my usual news sources, and I wish I could see more outlets grappling with their shortcomings. Immerwahr writes that it may not have been wise to shut down in-person schooling in the way that many places did; David Zweig’s recent book, “An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions,” shows how doing so damaged the education and the social lives of children. It’s humbling to think that many of the choices of those in power were influenced by groupthink, but it also seems important to interrogate our decisions objectively, in order to better prepare ourselves for the next pandemic.

Sara Suppan
Minneapolis, Minn.

Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to themail@newyorker.com. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.