The ‘Science Mafia’ and the Costs of Nonconformity in Research and Mental Health: My Experience

In the world of science and behavior, particularly when it comes to research, inclusion, and nontraditional methods, there is an undeniable mafia-like power structure. While it may not involve covert operations or criminal activity, it does exert extraordinary influence over who gets in and who doesn’t. In the field of mental health, and in broader research communities, being “different” or taking an unconventional approach can be seen as a threat, and those who deviate from the norm are often excluded, misunderstood, and alienated from their peers. I have seen this firsthand.

Dr. Andrew Huberman’s mention of the “NY Mafia” in the context of science and inclusion struck a chord with me, not only because of its historical ties to organized power, but also because of how accurately it describes the exclusionary dynamics that still exist in these academic and clinical spaces. Whether in academia, professional circles, or even the mental health community, those of us who challenge the status quo are often met with isolation, rejection, or outright rejection.

The Cost of Non-Conformity

As someone who lives with a disability and has unconventional ideas, I have found myself excluded in many ways, both personally and professionally. Being different, whether it’s thinking outside the box, rejecting outdated treatment models, or advocating for underrepresented populations, can often feel like a death sentence in these established networks. Your voice is pushed out and doors that should be open for collaboration are slammed shut.

In both science and mental health, there is an unwritten rule that innovation is welcome, but only under the strict control of those in positions of authority. Any deviation from accepted norms—whether in thought, behavior, or practice—is met with suspicion. But as we all know, growth and progress occur because of these deviations, not in spite of them.

I have had experiences where my innovative approaches to therapy, especially when it comes to more inclusive and holistic models, have been met with skepticism. I have been criticized by colleagues, like Darby Penny, and even labeled as a “threat.” My behavior, which some would consider “weird” or “non-traditional,” has not been easily accepted in spaces that claim to champion mental health and inclusivity. These experiences have made me question who these systems are truly designed to serve and how deeply ingrained their biases are.

Innovation as a threat

This fear of the unknown or difference reminds me of how the mental health system often treats patients with “strange” or nontraditional behaviors. Instead of being greeted with curiosity or openness, those who think differently or who do not conform to expected behavioral norms are often dismissed. This mirrors what happens in academia and research: if your approach or ideas do not align with accepted models, you are quickly dismissed.

The problem is that these systems preach inclusion and openness, but often fail to deliver on those promises. They rely on the safety of what is known, and often perpetuate harmful cycles of exclusion – whether in diagnosing and treating mental illness or determining what kinds of research are acceptable.

For people like me who have lived with schizophrenia and other mental health conditions and who are actively seeking more inclusive, patient-centered approaches, this exclusionary dynamic becomes an even greater hurdle. The idea that there is a mafia-like control over what is acceptable in these spaces feels less like hyperbole and more like reality.

Going against the status quo

So how do we resist this “mafia” that controls what is considered valid or important in mental health and science? First, we need to embrace diversity of thought and behavior, not as something to fear, but as the basis for innovation. Inclusion needs to go beyond tokenism and truly include those of us who don’t fit into the neat boxes these systems create.

It is crucial that we openly challenge these power structures, as Dr. Huberman does, by calling out the unspoken rules and biases that govern scientific communities and the mental health system. It is also important that those of us who have been excluded because of our nontraditional ideas continue to move forward and create our own spaces for innovation, collaboration, and true inclusivity.

The beauty of nonconformity is that it often leads to breakthroughs. In mental health, this can mean new therapeutic models that better serve clients. In research, it can mean the discovery of something previously unseen. But none of this can happen if we let a handful of gatekeepers decide what is valid or important.

Let’s break these rigid structures and embrace the strange, the unconventional and the innovative. Ultimately, it’s those of us who dare to think differently who will push the boundaries of what’s possible, both in mental health and in science in general.

Takeaway meal

In many ways, the world of mental health and research is still run like a mafia. It thrives on tight control that excludes anyone who doesn’t fit the mold. If we want to see real progress, both for clients and in research, we need to challenge these structures and advocate for true inclusivity – one that accepts all behaviors, ideas, and people, not just those deemed acceptable by the current system.

By continuing to speak up and create spaces where the non-traditional can flourish, we have the opportunity to break down these barriers. Let’s move forward together and celebrate the “weird” and the different, because it’s in these spaces that real change happens.

Maxwell E. Guttman, LCSW is a psychotherapist and owner of Recovery Now, a private mental health practice in New York City.