Drug Science orDrugScience, originally called theIndependent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD), is a UK-based drugs advisory committee proposed and initially funded byhedge fund manager Toby Jackson.[2][3] It is chaired by ProfessorDavid Nutt and was officially launched on 15 January 2010 with the help of theCentre for Crime and Justice Studies. The primary aim of the committee is to review and investigate the scientific evidence of drug harms without the political interference that could result from government affiliation.[2][4][5][6]
Drug Science initially focused on reviewing official risk estimates forpsychedelic drugs,ecstasy andcannabis, and increasing warnings of the dangers ofketamine.[3] In 2013, Drug Science launched the peer-review academic journalDrug Science, Policy and Law[10] published bySAGE. They currently have four working groups Medical Cannabis,[11] Medical Psychedelics,[12] Medical Psychedelics,[13] and Enhanced Harm Reduction.[14]
In 2010, Drug Science published a ranking of drug harms in the UK, the results of which garnered significant media attention.[15][16][17][18] Drugs were assessed on two metrics – harm to users and harms to society. The report found heroin, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine to be the most harmful drugs to individuals, with alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine as the most harmful to others. Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug, with heroin and crack cocaine in second and third place. Most notably, the report stated that the legal status of most drugs bears little relation to the harms associated with them – severalclass A drugs includingecstasy (MDMA),LSD andmagic mushrooms featured at the very bottom of the list. Similar findings were found by a Europe-wide study conducted by 40 drug experts in 2015.[19] Since then, drug ranking by total harm research has come to the same conclusion.[20][21]
A ranking of common recreational drugs in the UK – assessed by harm to user and harm to society. Alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine are the three most harmful drugs
Methods used in drug harm comparison
The results of the study were based on the opinions and judgment of 15 researchers, doctors, and a journalist. These opinions were exchanged and discussed during a 1-day workshop in accordance with a decision-making procedure calledMultiple-Criteria-Decision-Analysis (MCDA).[6] This procedure attempts to structure the debate so as to eliminate biases, but given that it has no input other than the experience and knowledge of the participants involved, it is unlikely to be unbiased if the participants share a similar understanding of a subject, or if the science in the field is inadequate to make a good judgment.
Drug Science has expanded its MCDA method to a number of contexts to measure the harms of various drugs and drug policies.
Using a similar multi-criteria decision analysis process as the 2010 drug harm ranking, Drug Science looked to rank the harms of all nicotine-containing products, including cigarettes, cigars,nicotine patches ande-cigarettes. The report concluded that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than conventional cigarettes, advice which was subsequently used in a report[22] byPublic Health England on e-cigarettes and now forms part of the evidence-base for the positions of the UK Government[23] and theNational Health Service. This figure was widely reported on in the press,[24][25] but remains controversial as the long-term harms of e-cigarettes remain unknown.
Drug Science also undertook 2 MCDAs in 2015. The first was completed through a grant received by the EU Department of Justice and sought to rank the comparative harms of 20 drugs in the EU. The published report ranked alcohol andtobacco as the most harmful and in need of policy reforms, while drugs like cannabis and ecstasy ranked last.[26] The second MCDA was a comparison of policy responses to non-medical opioid usage. The final report, published in 2021, ranked state control of opioid supply as the most effective means of reducing harm, with absolute prohibition ranking as the least effective.[27]
Drug Science additionally contributes to international MCDAs for drug policy. In 2018, they supported a Norwegian drug policy MCDA, which ranked policy responses to cannabis and alcohol. The final report concluded that state control of cannabis and alcohol supply is the most effective to reduce the harms of both drugs.[28] In the same year, Drug Science provided support for an Australian MCDA on comparative drug harms, which ranked the harms of 22 drugs and largely mirrored the results of the original 2010 UK harm ranking.[29]
A multi-criteria decision analysis ranking of nicotine-containing product harm. Cigarettes and cigars are the most harmful by a considerable degree, with e-cigarettes some 95% less harmful than cigarettes.
Drugs Live: The Ecstasy Trial is a two-part TV documentary aired on Channel 4 on 26 and 27 September 2012. The program showed anfMRI study on the effects ofMDMA (ecstasy) on the brain, which was funded byChannel 4. The main researchers on the study were Drug Science's Val Curran andDavid Nutt who also appeared as guests on the show. Curran and Nutt oversaw research atImperial College London, in which volunteers took part in adouble blind study, taking either 83 mg ofMDMA or aplacebo before going into thefMRI scanner.
The documentary was presented byChristian Jessen andJon Snow, and included debate on the harms of MDMA, as well as exhibiting the findings of the study. Some participants in the study also appeared on the show, including a vicar, an ex-soldier, writerLionel Shriver, actorKeith Allen and former Liberal Democrat MPEvan Harris.
Following the success ofThe Ecstasy Trial, a second documentary aired on Channel 4,Drugs Live: The Cannabis Trial, on 3 March 2015. Snow, along with fellow journalistsMatthew Parris andJennie Bond, took part in "a groundbreaking trial," consuming cannabis in bothskunk andhash form and having their brains imaged with an fMRI.[30] Throughout the program, Nutt and Drug Science Scientific Committee member, Professor Val Curran, gave expert commentary and interpreted the fMRI results. This experiment, funded by Channel 4, Drug Science, and theBeckley Foundation was a part of a larger trial atUniversity College London (UCL), examining the effects of cannabis on the brain.[31]
In 2019, Drug Science launched the Medical Cannabis Working Group to provide guidance in the emerging medical cannabis sector.[32] The same year, they established Project T21 (originally Project Twenty21), Europe's largest medical cannabis patient data registry, aiming to create the UK's largest body of evidence for the effectiveness and tolerability of medical cannabis.[33] T21 allowed eligible patients to access affordable medical cannabis treatment, with their progress monitored to gather real-world evidence supportingNHS funding for such therapies.[34] By 2021, Drug Science published its first T21 paper, making findings accessible to the public, and the registry surpassed 1,000 registered patients, a significant milestone for medical cannabis research.[35] In 2022, T21 expanded to Australia in collaboration with the Australian College of Cannabinoid Medicine.[36]
After its 5th year, Project T21 ceased operation in 2024.[37]
Drug Science has additionally been involved with several cannabis studies, like collaborating with MedCan Support in 2023 to study cannabis use for rare childhoodepilepsies.[38] Additionally, Drug Science has studied and published results regarding the usage ofCBD-based medicines in controlling symptoms ofLong COVID. This study has demonstrated that these medicines are safe and well-tolerated.[39]
In 2020, Drug Science launched the Medical Psychedelics Working Group to promote a rational approach to psychedelic research and explore theirtherapeutic potential. This initiative aims to develop evidence-based policies and clinical practices for the use of psychedelics in medical settings.[13] In 2024, Drug Science partnered with UCL to studyMDMA-assisted psychotherapy, focusing on its therapeutic potential. This collaboration seeks to address concerns that the 'psychotherapy' aspect of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy—which expert opinion considers crucial to long-term success involving MDMA as a psychotherapeutic agent—is not yet well understood and may be suboptimal.
Ragan, C. I.; Bard, I.; Sing, I; Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD) (2013). "What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence".Neuropharmacology.64:588–595.doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.06.016.PMID22732441.S2CID207227699.
^van Amsterdam, Jan; Nutt, David; Phillips, Lawrence; van den Brink, Wim (June 2015). "European rating of drug harms".Journal of Psychopharmacology.29 (6):655–660.doi:10.1177/0269881115581980.ISSN1461-7285.PMID25922421.
^Rogeberg, Ole; Bergsvik, Daniel; Phillips, Lawrence D.; van Amsterdam, Jan; Eastwood, Niamh; Henderson, Graeme; Lynskey, Micheal; Measham, Fiona; Ponton, Rhys; Rolles, Steve; Schlag, Anne Katrin; Taylor, Polly; Nutt, David (June 2018). "A new approach to formulating and appraising drug policy: A multi-criterion decision analysis applied to alcohol and cannabis regulation".The International Journal on Drug Policy.56:144–152.doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.01.019.hdl:10044/1/58452.ISSN1873-4758.PMID29459211.
^Bonomo, Yvonne; Norman, Amanda; Biondo, Sam; Bruno, Raimondo; Daglish, Mark; Dawe, Sharon; Egerton-Warburton, Diana; Karro, Jonathan; Kim, Charles; Lenton, Simon; Lubman, Dan I; Pastor, Adam; Rundle, Jill; Ryan, John; Gordon, Paul (1 July 2019)."The Australian drug harms ranking study".Journal of Psychopharmacology.33 (7):759–768.doi:10.1177/0269881119841569.ISSN0269-8811.PMID31081439.
