NAP’s First Grant Submissions - Breaking Down the Barriers to Research
How does the government influence research priorities and direction? It provides the funding criteria. Read on to learn more about the grant funding process in academic research and a preview of pieces from NAP’s first grant submissions to both the federal government (NIH) and a private foundation (RWJ).
Three-dimensional depiction of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (D9-THC).
In the US, the federal government funds over 50% of all academic research with the top 30 institutions receiving over 40% of those funds, which means that the research environment is driven by a very small number of people with conflicting interests and preconceived ideas. To receive this funding, grant proposals must be submitted through an approved institution that has an agreement with the federal government on how to receive overhead administrative funds. The grant proposals must be sent directly to a specific part of the federal government that has requested information on a topic, called a “request for proposal.”
The only research that is funded will be answering these proposals put out by the government and written in a direct response to the government’s wishes.
This has always been and still remains the largest fundamental barrier to researching cannabis as a medicine. We are still in a prohibition. But the restraint on research is much more than just the immense legal and financial barriers. There exists an ideological barrier created by decades of research done on behalf of the federal government to devalue and demonize cannabis in contrast to more profitable alternatives. We cannot change what we’ve done, but we can change where we’re going.
In an effort to make the process of scientific grant applications more accessible and visible, the following excerpts are our argument for why we should be exploring alternative mechanisms to research, specifically in prioritizing lived experience.
Why cannabis research is different, especially right now!
Excerpt from a grant application for a resource center for cannabis to the National Institute of Health:
”In today's rapidly-evolving landscape of cannabis products, medical patients and adult-use consumers are presented with an ever-expanding array of options, from traditional flower to innovative concentrates, edibles, topicals, and beyond. This product diversity reflects the continuous novel processing and formulation techniques employed by the cannabis industry to meet the evolving demands and preferences of consumers. However, amidst this proliferation of products, the need for standardized information remains paramount and academic research is falling behind relevant practices in the real world. Without input from the cannabis industry, the academic research community faces larger barriers to entry in a volatile, continuously changing landscape of both formulations and legality of access to research opportunities. As the cannabis industry continues to expand and diversify, the importance of reducing these barriers to entry in cannabis science becomes increasingly urgent, underscoring the critical role that collaborative efforts between industrial and academic researchers will play in advancing the field and promoting public health.
There has never been a more critical time for scientific research to influence public health with regard to protecting medical Cannabis. As the adult-use markets expand, their profitability overshadows essential medical cannabis priorities like the quality of medicine, diversity of formulations available to patients, and harm reduction practices, including continuous community education and engagement. The cannabis and cannabinoid research community members are essential public influencers and the integration of subject matter experts in underrepresented areas are needed to ensure that developments in the cannabis industry are both innovative and scientifically sound. More open communication is needed between academic and industrial research groups to facilitate synergies in findings across multiple disciplines.”
Medical cannabis patients, especially those who need higher dosages or dose schedules, are not prioritized in research
Excerpt from a letter of intent for a grant application to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:
“Cannabis sativa is a natural medicine that has evolved with humanity over millions of years. There are many different therapeutic uses for Cannabis, ranging from chronic pain, sleep, and anxiety to powerful anti-seizure effects, life-saving appetite stimulation, and mental and physical re-balancing effects for chronic conditions. Additionally, Cannabis is one of the safest natural medicines humanity has ever discovered. There is preliminary evidence for specific populations of high-needs, complex medical patients having dysregulated endocannabinoid systems such that the addition of Cannabis reduces negative traits and improves quality of life. This population is a specific subset of patients with disabilities, significant trauma, and often other co-occurring social vulnerabilities who face a combination of mental and physical health limitations intertwining with social and economic factors that magnify barriers to quality health care. Racism is at the core of cannabis stigmatization and continues to be a vector for discrimination, especially in states with limited legal access. By investigating the intersectionality of these issues, we aim to uncover tangible, measurable barriers that should be prioritized, amplify silenced voices, and encourage a more inclusive healthcare landscape that allows for the equitable treatment of high-needs medical cannabis patients within the standard system.”
Accelerating research outcomes by synergizing efforts between the industry, academia, and the cannabis community must be prioritized
Excerpt from a pending grant submission to the National Institute of Health:
The real-world evidence supporting complex formulations from Cannabis sativa as effective therapeutic interventions for a wide array of conditions mandates further investigation into the underlying mechanisms of action of endocannabinoid system targets. The chemical diversity of Cannabis and related products is vast and not well represented in scientific studies which typically involve isolated compounds or simple formulations. There is early real-world evidence that this chemical diversity leads to distinctive phenotypic profiles that differentiate perceived effects, and product innovation in the private sector continuously brings novel genetic manipulation, extraction methods, formulations, emulsifications, and other chemically-distinctive profiles to the general public faster than our existing academic research infrastructure can stay abreast.
Taken together, this implies the standard approach to evaluating drug efficacy by a single, active ingredient acting upon a single target lacks relevance for the modern accessibility and rapid evolution of Cannabis. Prioritizing the evaluation of the entire chemical profile as a whole, in real-world formulations the general public is already utilizing, must be considered with a focus on potential interactions of various classes of molecules that share similarity of molecular structure.
REFERENCES
National Science Board, National Science Foundation. 2023. Academic Research and Development. Science and Engineering Indicators 2024. NSB-2023-26. Alexandria, VA. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202326/.