Reports by explorers and travelers and the first scientific studies on ayahuasca (dating from 1850 to 1950) within the current debate on the "psychedelic renaissance".

IF 0.5 4区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Historia, ciencias, saude--Manguinhos Pub Date : 2023-07-10 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1590/S0104-59702023000100023
Vinícius Maurício de Lima, Maria Gabriela Silva Martins da Cunha Marinho
{"title":"Reports by explorers and travelers and the first scientific studies on ayahuasca (dating from 1850 to 1950) within the current debate on the \"psychedelic renaissance\".","authors":"Vinícius Maurício de Lima, Maria Gabriela Silva Martins da Cunha Marinho","doi":"10.1590/S0104-59702023000100023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article describes the associations and controversies between indigenous and western uses of ayahuasca between 1850 and 1950 in relation to the \"psychedelic renaissance.\" This movement has gained scientific attention since 2000, but hearkens back to the 1960s and 1970s, when anti-drug policy halted research on the \"therapeutic potential\" of psychoactive substances. Pioneering studies on ayahuasca date back to the early twentieth century and mention reports of expeditions to Amazonia from 1850 onward. Here, these articles and reports are analyzed according to the historical aspect of actor-network theory and recent studies. We infer that history casts light on the current political debate about indigenous uses, classifications, and meanings, pharmaceutical interest in ayahuasca, and the debate on \"drugs.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":13134,"journal":{"name":"Historia, ciencias, saude--Manguinhos","volume":"30 ","pages":"e2023023"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10395591/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historia, ciencias, saude--Manguinhos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702023000100023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article describes the associations and controversies between indigenous and western uses of ayahuasca between 1850 and 1950 in relation to the "psychedelic renaissance." This movement has gained scientific attention since 2000, but hearkens back to the 1960s and 1970s, when anti-drug policy halted research on the "therapeutic potential" of psychoactive substances. Pioneering studies on ayahuasca date back to the early twentieth century and mention reports of expeditions to Amazonia from 1850 onward. Here, these articles and reports are analyzed according to the historical aspect of actor-network theory and recent studies. We infer that history casts light on the current political debate about indigenous uses, classifications, and meanings, pharmaceutical interest in ayahuasca, and the debate on "drugs."

在当前关于 "迷幻药复兴 "的争论中,探险家和旅行家的报告以及关于死藤水的第一批科学研究(可追溯到 1850 年至 1950 年)。
本文介绍了 1850 年至 1950 年间死藤水在土著和西方使用之间的关联和争议,以及与 "迷幻药复兴 "的关系。这一运动自 2000 年以来获得了科学界的关注,但其历史可以追溯到 20 世纪 60 和 70 年代,当时的禁毒政策停止了对精神活性物质 "治疗潜力 "的研究。关于死藤水的开创性研究可以追溯到 20 世纪初,其中提到了 1850 年以来对亚马逊探险的报道。在此,我们将根据行为网络理论的历史方面和最新研究对这些文章和报告进行分析。我们推断,历史为当前关于土著用途、分类和意义的政治辩论、对死藤水的制药兴趣以及关于 "毒品 "的辩论提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Historia, ciencias, saude--Manguinhos
Historia, ciencias, saude--Manguinhos HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信