Former government adviser says illegal status of psychoactive drugs stymies research into their potential therapeutic uses

This article is more than 7 years old

This article is more than 7 years old

International drug laws amount to scientific censorship, setting back key areas of research including medical treatments, according to a former government drug adviser.

In the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Prof David Nutt, of Imperial College London, said UN conventions on drugs acted as some of the most scandalous examples of scientific censorship in modern times.

Along with another former government adviser, Leslie King, and Prof David Nichols, of the University of North Carolina, Nutt argued that psychoactive drugs used in research should be exempt from severe restrictions.

Nutt resigned as the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in November 2009 over the decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug.

The possession of cannabis, ecstasy and psychedelics is regulated under national laws and international conventions dating back to the 1960s.

Nutt said: "The decision to outlaw these drugs was based on their perceived dangers, but in many cases the harms have been overstated and are actually less than many legal drugs such as alcohol.

"The laws have never been updated despite scientific advances and growing evidence that many of these drugs are relatively safe. And there appears to be no way for the international community to make such changes."

The paper argues that the illegal status of psychoactive drugs makes research into their mechanisms of action and potential therapeutic uses, for example in depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), difficult.

"This hindering of research and therapy is motivated by politics, not science. It's one of the most scandalous examples of scientific censorship in modern times," said Nutt.

"The ban on embryonic stem cell research by the Bush administration is the only possible contender, but that only affected the USA, not the whole world."

Nutt and his colleagues argued that the limitations of cannabis research had had a harmful impact on UK pharmaceutical productivity.

Although many of the psychoactive elements of the cannabis plant were discovered in the UK, he said, developing them into medications has been severely hampered by excessive regulation.

"If we adopted a more rational approach to drug regulation, it would empower researchers to make advances in the study of consciousness and brain mechanisms of psychosis, and could lead to major treatment innovations in areas such as depression and PTSD," Nutt added.

The call for reform has been endorsed by the British Neuroscience Association and the British Association for Psychopharmacology.

The researchers are also seeking support from other academic organisations including the Royal Society, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists and the Society for Biology.