Schedule 1 barriers to research in the UK: An in-depth qualitative analysis

Summary & key facts

The researchers interviewed 12 UK scientists to find out why it is so hard to study drugs classed as Schedule 1 — the most tightly controlled drugs, which include many psychedelics. They found a mix of practical, financial, and red-tape problems that stop large studies from happening. People who already research Schedule 1 drugs said they face heavy duties but often have strong motivation and special privileges that help them push projects forward. The paper says the government should ask the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the rules so Schedule 1 research is easier and closer to the rules used for less restricted drugs.

Key facts:

• The team spoke to 12 people: eight researchers who work with Schedule 1 drugs and four who study other controlled drugs.
• Researchers described practical, financial, and bureaucratic barriers that reduce the number of large clinical trials into Schedule 1 drugs.
• The analysis identified four main themes in what people said: different levels of duty or workload, the role of special privileges, researchers' motivations, and a sense of solidarity between groups.
• Schedule 1 researchers reported they can better handle heavy duties because they often have higher motivation and more privileges, which makes starting studies easier for them than for others.
• Barriers included government officials blocking changes to drug laws and discrimination from people who lack scientific understanding, both of which make it hard to begin Schedule 1 projects.
• The authors recommend an urgent review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to reduce barriers to Schedule 1 research and bring its rules closer to those that control Schedule 2 substances.

Abstract

Background There is increasing research to suggest that certain Schedule 1 drugs, most notably psychedelics, can be effective in treating a range of mental health disorders. However, due to several practical, financial, and bureaucratic barriers, there is a lack of large-scale trials into their efficacy. This study aimed to explore the barriers, and any facilitators, to undertaking Schedule 1 research through examining the different positions Schedule 1 and other controlled drug researchers place themselves in, and the impact this has on their experiences. Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 participants. Eight Schedule 1 researchers and four researchers who conduct other controlled drug research. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling. Interview questions explored how participants’ experiences of controlled drug research were impacted by scheduling laws, and how they might differ from the other group. Results Using discourse analysis, four themes were identified. Three themes differentiated the two groups of researchers and their positions ( differential burden of duties, the importance of privileges, and motivations); the differential burden of duties acted as a barrier to non-Schedule 1 researchers, whereas Schedule 1 researchers were better able to deal with this burden due to higher levels of motivation and more privileges (facilitating Schedule 1 research). One theme suggested solidarity between the groups; others acted as barriers to Schedule 1 research, with government officials preventing changes to drug legislation, and those lacking scientific understanding being discriminatory, causing difficulties getting Schedule 1 projects started. Conclusion Findings highlight the challenges that Schedule 1 researchers are currently facing and suggest that the government should commission an urgent review into this by the Advisory Council on the Misuse on the Misuse of Drugs to make Schedule 1 research process smoother and more accessible. For example, reducing the barriers to research of Schedule 1 substances so as to be in line with the regulations controlling those in Schedule 2.

Topics

Chemical synthesis and alkaloids Diverse academic research themes Psychedelics and Drug Studies

Categories

Clinical Psychology Psychology Social Sciences

Tags

Computer science Environmental health Government (linguistics) Law Legislation Linguistics Medicine Nonprobability sampling Operating system Pathology Philosophy Political science Population Psychology Public relations Qualitative research Schedule Snowball sampling Social science Sociology