Drug laws "censor science", say researchers


Professor David Nutt

Professor David Nutt

The outlawing of psychoactive drugs amounts to the worst case of scientific censorship in modern times, a group of leading scientists have argued.

A paper published today in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience claims that the UN conventions on drugs in the 1960s and 1970s have not only compounded the harms of drugs but also produced the worst censorship of research for over 300 years. They have set back research in key areas such as consciousness by decades and effectively stopped the investigation of promising medical treatments, the researchers say.

The paper is written by Professor David Nutt of Imperial College London and Leslie King, both former government advisors, and Professor David Nichols of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The possession of cannabis, MDMA (ecstasy) and psychedelics are stringently regulated under national laws and international conventions dating back to the 1960s.

“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,” said Professor Nutt, Edmond J Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London.

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

– Professor David Nutt

Edmond J Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology

“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 and in many cases almost impossible.

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

Professor Nutt and his colleagues point out that the limitations of cannabis research have had a very harmful impact on UK pharmaceutical productivity. Although many of the psychoactive elements of the cannabis plant were discovered in the UK, developing them into medications has been severely hampered by excessive regulation.

They argue that the use of psychoactive drugs in research should be exempted from severe restrictions. “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,” Professor Nutt said.

The call for reform has been endorsed by the British Neuroscience Association and the British Association for Psychopharmacology, and the researchers are also seeking support from other academic organisations.


D Nutt et al. ‘Effects of Schedule I drug laws on neuroscience research and treatment innovation.’ Nature Reviews Neuroscience: Science & Society Article series ‘Neuroscience and the Law’ 2013.

See the press release of this article


Sam Wong

Sam Wong
School of Professional Development

Click to expand or contract

Contact details

Email: press.office@imperial.ac.uk
Show all stories by this author


See more tags


Comments are loading...

Leave a comment

Your comment may be published, displaying your name as you provide it, unless you request otherwise. Your contact details will never be published.