Abstract
Corporations across sectors engage in the conduct, sponsorship, and dissemination of scientific research. Industry sponsorship of research, however, is associated with research agendas, outcomes, and conclusions that are favourable to the sponsor. The legalization of cannabis in Canada provides a useful case study to understand the nature and extent of the nascent cannabis industry’s involvement in the production of scientific evidence as well as broader impacts on equity-oriented research agendas. We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive, meta-research study to describe the characteristics of research that reports funding from, or author conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. From May to August 2021, we sampled licensed, prominent Canadian cannabis companies, identified their subsidiaries, and searched each company name in the PubMed conflict of interest statement search interface. Authors of included articles disclosed research support from, or conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. We included 156 articles: 82% included at least one author with a conflict of interest and 1/3 reported study support from a Canadian cannabis company. More than half of the sampled articles were not cannabis focused, however, a cannabis company was listed amongst other biomedical companies in the author disclosure statement. For articles with a cannabis focus, prevalent topics included cannabis as a treatment for a range of conditions (15/72, 21%), particularly chronic pain (6/72, 8%); as a tool in harm reduction related to other substance use (10/72, 14%); product safety (10/72, 14%); and preclinical animal studies (6/72, 8%). Demographics were underreported in empirical studies with human participants, but most included adults (76/84, 90%) and, where reported, predominantly white (32/39, 82%) and male (49/83, 59%) participants. The cannabis company-funded studies included people who used drugs (37%) and people prescribed medical cannabis (22%). Canadian cannabis companies may be analogous to peer industries such as pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, and food in the following three ways: sponsoring research related to product development, expanding indications of use, and supporting key opinion leaders. Given the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is ample opportunity to create a policy climate that can mitigate the harms of criminalization as well as impacts of the “funding effect” on research integrity, research agendas, and the evidence base available for decision-making, while promoting high-priority and equity-oriented independent research.
Funder
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference34 articles.
1. Professor of Cannabis Science announced to research the role of cannabis in opioid overdose treatment. In: UBC Faculty of Medicine [Internet]. 23 Nov 2018 [cited 26 May 2022]. Available from: https://www.med.ubc.ca/news/professor-of-cannabis-science-announced-to-research-the-role-of-cannabis-in-opioid-overdose-treatment/
2. UNB welcomes the first cannabis health research chair in the country. 27 Nov 2018 [cited 13 Oct 2022]. Available from: https://blogs.unb.ca/newsroom/2018/11/unb-welcomes-the-first-cannabis-health-research-chair-in-the-country.php
3. Industry sponsorship and research outcome.;A Lundh;Cochrane Database Syst Rev.,2017
4. Relationship between research outcomes and risk of bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes: A systematic review of reviews.;D Mandrioli;PLOS ONE,2016
5. Do financial conflicts of interest bias research?: An inquiry into the “funding effect” hypothesis;S. Krimsky;Sci Technol Hum Values,2013
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献