Then vs. Now comparison · thenVsNow/tnv-plants-05

The Pharmacological Harvest: What Schultes's Work Has Produced

Education, not medical advice. Drafts and study material from an independent research library. Citations on this page were checked on Oct 13, 2026; claims in the body text and organizational sources are still under review. What was checked.

Then (1979), Plants of the Gods

The Pharmacological Harvest: What Schultes's Work Has Produced

Schultes and Hofmann's Plants of the Gods documented 91 psychoactive plant species used by indigenous cultures across the Americas, Africa, and Eurasia, their chemistry, their ritual contexts, their cultural significance. Hofmann contributed the pharmacological analysis. Schultes contributed the ethnobotanical documentation. Their implicit argument was that this pharmacological diversity represented a vast untapped resource for medicine, psychiatry, and the scientific understanding of consciousness.
confirmed
The pharmacological harvest from the plants Schultes documented is well underway, forty-five years after Plants of the Gods. Psilocybin (from Schultes-documented Psilocybe species) is approaching FDA approval for treatment-resistant depression after two successful Phase 3 trials. Ibogaine (from Tabernanthe iboga, documented by Schultes) is in clinical trials for opioid use disorder and PTSD, with Texas committing $50 million in research funding in 2025 and Mississippi passing an ibogaine research bill in March 2026. Mescaline (from peyote and other cacti extensively documented by Schultes) is decriminalized in Colorado and the subject of active research into cluster headache treatment. DMT-based ayahuasca is the subject of dozens of clinical trials globally. The pharmacological argument Schultes and Hofmann made, that these plants contain medically important compounds, has been empirically validated on a substantial scale. The ethical argument about who benefits from this validation remains largely unresolved. The communities whose knowledge guided the documentation have received no systematic benefit from the pharmaceutical development. The Nagoya Protocol covers new exploitation but not historical extraction. Schultes was right about the pharmacological value. The justice question he did not ask has become the central contested issue in the field he helped create.

Sources