Skip to content

An Ethical Exploration of Barriers to Research on Controlled Drugs.

Michael H Andreae, Evelyn Rhodes, Tyler Bourgoise, George M Carter, Robert S White, Debbie Indyk, Henry Sacks, Rosamond Rhodes

The American Journal of Bioethics 2016 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2016.1145282 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Review Peer reviewed
Topics Cannabis Ketamine
Keywords Humans Heroin Biomedical research Freedom Informed consent Social justice Ethics committees, research Ethics, research United states Controlled substances United kingdom Research ethics Institutional review board Human subjects research Confidentiality and privacy
Key findings Argues that overly strict regulations, fear of legal consequences, stigma, and lack of funding may hinder research on the therapeutic potential of controlled substances like marijuana, heroin, and ketamine, despite legitimate concerns about hazards and adverse effects. Proposes an empirical research agenda to provide an evidentiary basis for ethical reasoning about such research.

Abstract

We examine the ethical, social, and regulatory barriers that may hinder research on therapeutic potential of certain controversial controlled substances like marijuana, heroin, or ketamine. Hazards for individuals and society and potential adverse effects on communities may be good reasons for limiting access and justify careful monitoring of these substances. Overly strict regulations, fear of legal consequences, stigma associated with abuse and populations using illicit drugs, and lack of funding may, however, limit research on their considerable therapeutic potential. We review the surprisingly sparse literature and address the particular ethical concerns pertinent to research with illicit and addictive substances, such as undue inducement, informed consent, therapeutic misconception, and risk to participants, researchers, and institutions. We consider the perspectives of key research stakeholders and explore whether they may be infected with bias. We conclude by proposing an empirical research agenda to provide an evidentiary basis for ethical reasoning.

Comparable studies

Other narrative reviews on cannabis, most cited first.

Citations in the library

Explore topics