New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Medical Marijuana Faces Fed's Catch-22

Doing large studies of marijuana's potential as medicine means getting it removed from an official federal list of substances with no official medical use—which requires more proof of its potential as medicine.

BRETT LEVIN

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Medical marijuana is now available in 28 states. But a big obstacle to research on marijuana as medicine is that it’s listed by the federal government on what’s called Schedule I. Assignment to Schedule I means that the Food and Drug Administration does not recognize a legitimate medical purpose to a substance.

At a session on medical marijuana at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on February 19th, I asked researcher Ryan Vandrey, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, about getting marijuana off of the list of Schedule I substances.

RV: “Well, it can’t come off of Schedule I to a different schedule until the traditional drug development work has been done, and I don’t think the traditional drug development work really can be done while it’s Schedule I. It just makes large Phase III trials in hospital-based programs near impossible.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


SM: “So it’s a catch-22.”

RV: “It’s a catch-22. So I think the only way to really get around that is kinda two paths. One, you just unscheduled it completely. Alcohol is not scheduled, for example, so that’s the pathway that some of the states have gone, just making it available. Or treating is as like a botanical, herbal product. The other way would be to kinda wait until we get more targeted, specific products. So not whole plant cannabis, but maybe more specific formulations with specific cannabinoid profiles, would be the other way.”

SM: “Your life would be easier with it off?”

RV: “Oh, absolutely. [laughs] Without a doubt. And just to clarify, the limitations that we have in doing research is that we are limited to doing research with products that are available through the federal drug supply program. They have quite a bit, but they don’t have everything. And then the limitation is even using their product we have to go through extra levels of regulatory scrutiny and experience substantial delays in doing our research.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe