A review of the historical trends in LSD research clearly indicates that LSD and similar drugs are too powerful and unique in their psychological effects to be mistaken for and studied as just another group of psychotropic compounds. The importance of the theoretical understanding and expectations of the researchers in determining the subjective effects and results of LSD treatment is undeniable. In addition, double-blind controlled studies have been demonstrated to be an inappropriate methodology for studying LSD, because it is not feasible to create an effective blind for LSD with either an active or inactive placebo. It must be realized that when attempting to scientifically study such ephemeral and easily influenced processes as those involving human consciousness, methods of study may influence the process and outcome of the research. In 1937 Werner Heisenberg demonstrated the uncertainty principle in relation to any attempt to measure with accuracy the minute processes of electrons in the atom. One must consider the possibility that current tools and methods for studying the effects of LSD are presently so crude as to demonstrate a similar uncertainty principle in LSD research: The methods of measuring actually influence the process under study to such a degree that the results that are garnered are primarily the effects of attempts at measurement. The continuing crisis in psychiatric and psychological treatment demands that the most powerful of the psychoactive drugs cannot simply be shelved and forgotten. The need is too strong to advance knowledge of the role and function of the human mind in health and disease. LSD and similar drugs hold a tremendous promise for humankind if only ways can be found to further understanding of how to use them responsibly and appropriately. Perhaps other societies that have integrated these substances into the very fabric of their social order may offer models. As Silberman (1970) has written: "No approach is more impractical than one which takes the present arrangements and practices as given, asking only 'How can we do what we are doing more effectively?' or 'How can we bring the worst institutions up to the level of the best?' These questions need to be asked to be sure; but one must also realize that best may not be good enough and may, in any case, already be changing."