“…As neither Metzner's nor Nichols' arguments convinced the majority of the research community to unequivocally prefer one term over the other, the legacy that the "great entactogen-empathogen debate" has left behind up to this day is the scenario described by Metzner above: some use one term, others the other. Thus, in order to describe the subjective MDMA experience some contemporary publications use the term "empathogen" only (except perhaps for a random mentioning of the other term) (e.g., Hysek et al, 2014;Molla et al, 2023;Monson et al, 2020;Schmid et al, 2014;Straumann et al, 2023;Wardle and de Wit, 2014), some "entactogen" only (e.g., Adam et al, 2024;Feduccia and Mithoefer, 2018;Mitchell et al, 2023;Oehen and Gasser, 2022), and some use both terms (Eisner, 1993;Holze et al, 2020: 462;Kargbo, 2022Kargbo, : 1543Passie, 2023;Vizeli et al, 2022). Additionally, some publications use neither of these two terms (e.g., Maples-Keller et al, 2022;Mithoefer et al, 2011Mithoefer et al, , 2018-and this can even be the case, when the very subject of the research is the subjective MDMA experience where both empathogenic themes such as "improved relationships and social skills" and entactogenic themes such as "improved selfawareness" are identified (Barone et al, 2019: 201-204).…”