Jav raises a really important point. Since this is research on human subjects, I would assume there should be an institutional review board or IRB somewhere in the picture. Of course, if this is just a personal project of the researcher, no IRB would have to pass on the protocol. I would certainly like to know which is the case.

The questionnaire is in PDF format (it is not a PDF form), so I assume respondents would have to print it out, fill it out by hand, and then either mail it back or scan it and send it as an email attachment. (Of course, you could download it, use a converter to change it into RTF, and then answer it in MSWord). Thus the recipient not only has your email address but your **handwritten** admission to a felony.

And, of course, if a scanner is required to submit your response, you have a serious selection bias problem. Your cohort is limited to people who have scanners. This is in addition to all the other selection biases. The cohort consists of people who (1) keep up with the MAPS website or subscribe to discussion groups such as the ayahuasca tribe, (2) have computers, (3) use email, and (4) are sufficiently motivated to jump through all the hoops involved in responding to the questionnaire. What kind of sample is that?

It seems at first glance that the researcher has not really thought through the protocol, which makes me even more convinced that this is a personal rather than an institutional project.

Let me add an additional thought. Do you really think that the DEA and probably even state drug agencies do *not* keep an eye on the MAPS website? As Jav points out, it would probably take a government agency about a minute and a half to subpoena all the responses in the researcher's possession.

-- Steve
singingtotheplants.blogspot.com/