Cannabis companies and the sponsorship of scientific research: A cross-sectional Canadian case study

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.

[1]  Lauren Rebecca Sklaroff Pushing Cool: Big Tobacco, Racial Marketing, and the Untold Story of the Menthol Cigarette , 2023, Journal of American History.

[2]  Rajiv M. Sastry Pushing Cool: Big Tobacco, Racial Marketing, and the Untold Story of the Menthol Cigarette , 2022, Addiction.

[3]  Theodore L. Caputi The Use of Academic Research in Medical Cannabis Marketing: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review of Company Websites. , 2022, Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs.

[4]  M. Chaiton,et al.  Cannabis clinical research in purgatory: Canadian researchers caught between an inflexible regulatory environment and a conflicted industry , 2021, Lancet regional health. Americas.

[5]  Akwasi Owusu-Bempah Where Is the Fairness in Canadian Cannabis Legalization? Lessons to be Learned from the American Experience , 2021, Journal of Canadian Studies.

[6]  M. Rychert,et al.  Policy Influence and the Legalized Cannabis Industry: Learnings from other Addictive Consumption Industries. , 2021, Addiction.

[7]  Alex Luscombe,et al.  Race, cannabis and the Canadian war on drugs: An examination of cannabis arrest data by race in five cities. , 2020, The International journal on drug policy.

[8]  Zoltan P. Majdik,et al.  Relationships among commercial practices and author conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing , 2020, PloS one.

[9]  D. Deshauer Ghost-Managed Medicine: Big Pharma’s Invisible Hands by Sergio Sismondo (review) , 2019 .

[10]  M. Herder,et al.  A responsibility to commercialize? Tracing academic researchers’ evolving engagement with the commercialization of biomedical research , 2019, Journal of Responsible Innovation.

[11]  L. Bero,et al.  The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review , 2018, American journal of public health.

[12]  S. Sismondo Ghost-Managed Medicine , 2018 .

[13]  Enrico Coiera,et al.  Prevalence of Disclosed Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research and Associations With Journal Impact Factors and Altmetric Scores , 2018, JAMA.

[14]  P. Lucas Rationale for cannabis-based interventions in the opioid overdose crisis , 2017, Harm Reduction Journal.

[15]  L. Bero,et al.  Industry sponsorship and research outcome. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[16]  L. Bero,et al.  Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of randomized controlled trials included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity , 2016, Public Health Nutrition.

[17]  L. Bero,et al.  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 , 2016, PloS one.

[18]  H. Wickham Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operations , 2015 .

[19]  S. Krimsky Do Financial Conflicts of Interest Bias Research? , 2013 .

[20]  N. Oreskes,et al.  Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming , 2010 .

[21]  L. Bero,et al.  Public Health Chronicles , 2005 .

[22]  G. Malhi,et al.  Recommendations , 2009, Acta Neuropsychiatrica.

[23]  P. Riis International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 1990, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[24]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[25]  Sergio Sismondo,et al.  Industry sponsorship and research outcome. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.