Canadian cannabis researcher perspectives on the conduct and sponsorship of scientific research by the for-profit cannabis industry

There has been considerable financial investment by the for-profit cannabis industry to conduct research on cannabis in Canada. Similar to peer industry counterparts such as the pharmaceutical, alcohol, tobacco, and food industries, there is evidence that for-profit cannabis companies are financially sponsoring research programs and researchers as well as non-financially, such as donating products. However, a large body of research has established that researchers' financial relationships with industries may influence research agendas, outcomes, lead to conflicts of interest, and bias the evidence base. Within a complex, emerging context of legalization, there is limited information on how cannabis researchers negotiate their relationships with the for-profit cannabis industry in Canada. Following a qualitative phenomenological methodology informed by moral experience for bioethics research, we conducted 38 semi-structured interviews with academic researchers, peer researchers, and clinicians with relevant perspectives about Canadian cannabis companies' research activities. We used a codebook approach to thematic analysis which generated three central themes: Navigating Systemic Barriers to Conduct Research; Impressions and Influences; and Guiding Principles for an Ethical Research Process. Our findings suggest that Canadian cannabis researchers tend to be morally ambivalent about cannabis industry sponsorship of research: they are motivated to conduct high quality research and generate evidence for population health benefit, yet they have concerns over the potential for research agenda bias created by these relationships which could be harmful to population health. Participants spoke how they relied heavily on personal values and individual strategies (transparency, value alignment, arms-length association, independence) to determine how they manage cannabis industry relationships. Our findings highlight how the issue of industry-academic relationships is a structural problem, thus individual-level solutions without attention to the relationship itself will only deepen ethical worries about industry-sponsored research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social Science & Medicine
Published
2024-11-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117556
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.87
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Canadian cannabis researcher perspectives on the conduct and sponsorship of scientific research by the for-profit cannabis industry

Quinn Grundy, Roberta K. Timothy, Abhimanyu Sud, Brooke Magel et al.
4 citations
Social Science & Medicine
Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
1.87
article

Canadian cannabis researcher perspectives on the conduct and sponsorship of scientific research by the for-profit cannabis industry

Quinn Grundy, Roberta K. Timothy, Abhimanyu Sud, Brooke Magel, Shreya Mahajan, Daniel Z. Buchman, Rowen Shier, Sophie Soklaridis, Titilayo Esther Davies
article en
4 citations

Abstract

There has been considerable financial investment by the for-profit cannabis industry to conduct research on cannabis in Canada. Similar to peer industry counterparts such as the pharmaceutical, alcohol, tobacco, and food industries, there is evidence that for-profit cannabis companies are financially sponsoring research programs and researchers as well as non-financially, such as donating products. However, a large body of research has established that researchers' financial relationships with industries may influence research agendas, outcomes, lead to conflicts of interest, and bias the evidence base. Within a complex, emerging context of legalization, there is limited information on how cannabis researchers negotiate their relationships with the for-profit cannabis industry in Canada. Following a qualitative phenomenological methodology informed by moral experience for bioethics research, we conducted 38 semi-structured interviews with academic researchers, peer researchers, and clinicians with relevant perspectives about Canadian cannabis companies' research activities. We used a codebook approach to thematic analysis which generated three central themes: Navigating Systemic Barriers to Conduct Research; Impressions and Influences; and Guiding Principles for an Ethical Research Process. Our findings suggest that Canadian cannabis researchers tend to be morally ambivalent about cannabis industry sponsorship of research: they are motivated to conduct high quality research and generate evidence for population health benefit, yet they have concerns over the potential for research agenda bias created by these relationships which could be harmful to population health. Participants spoke how they relied heavily on personal values and individual strategies (transparency, value alignment, arms-length association, independence) to determine how they manage cannabis industry relationships. Our findings highlight how the issue of industry-academic relationships is a structural problem, thus individual-level solutions without attention to the relationship itself will only deepen ethical worries about industry-sponsored research.

Social Science & MedicineVol. 364
University Health Network (CA), Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA), University of Toronto (CA), Trillium Health Centre (CA), Humber River Regional Hospital (CA), Public Health Ontario (CA), Krembil Research Institute
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
1.87
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.