Neue Studie beleuchtet ethische Herausforderungen bei der Durchführung von Cannabisforschung in Kanada

From [the abstract](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624010104?ref=cra_js_challenge&fr=RR-1):

> 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.