Tangentially, perhaps, but I wouldn't say that is the main argument.
I see the main argument as:
If the biology doesn't make sense within your current hypothesis, it is most likely the hypothesis which is wrong.
and the LSD argument is not about scientists taking drugs, but about scientists paying attention to evidence which comes from taking drugs. Which is very reasonable. Certainly as reasonable as other ablation studies, which are commonly accepted as good scientific practice (when kept within ethical bounds).
If some scientific discoveries were already made with of LSD, would you know? Its not like the scientists would admit to how they made the discovery in the methods section.
