IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v364y2025ics0277953624010104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Buchman, Daniel Z.
  • Magel, Brooke
  • Shier, Rowen
  • Davies, Titilayo Esther
  • Sud, Abhimanyu
  • Mahajan, Shreya
  • Timothy, Roberta K.
  • Soklaridis, Sophie
  • Grundy, Quinn

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Buchman, Daniel Z. & Magel, Brooke & Shier, Rowen & Davies, Titilayo Esther & Sud, Abhimanyu & Mahajan, Shreya & Timothy, Roberta K. & Soklaridis, Sophie & Grundy, Quinn, 2025. "Canadian cannabis researcher perspectives on the conduct and sponsorship of scientific research by the for-profit cannabis industry," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 364(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:364:y:2025:i:c:s0277953624010104
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117556
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624010104
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117556?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:364:y:2025:i:c:s0277953624010104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.