--- title: "Pot Used for Scientific Research is Pretty Weak" description: "A plant geneticist at the University of Northern Colorado found that the DNA of marijuana U.S. researchers are using for research looked way more like hemp." date: "2019-05-03" modified: "2019-05-03" authors: - name: "Victor Tangermann" job_title: "Senior Editor" link: "https://futurism.com/authors/victor" url: "https://futurism.com/marijuana-scientific-research-weak" categories: - "Health & Medicine" - "Medical" tags: - "cannabis" - "marijuana" - "medical research" --- # Pot Used for Scientific Research is Pretty Weak ![A plant geneticist at the University of Northern Colorado found that the DNA of marijuana U.S. researchers are using for research looked way more like hemp.]() *\Image: Victor Tangermann\* ## Science Schwag In order to study cannabis and its effects on humans, scientists must source it from the National Center for Natural Products Research at the University of Mississippi in Oxford. And that comes with a big downside: it's super weak compared to the stuff you can get on the street, [according to *Nature*](). And that's a problem, because it might put U.S. cannabis research results out of whack. Anna Schwabe, a plant geneticist at the University of Northern Colorado, found that the DNA of the stuff U.S. researchers are using looked way more like hemp than what we'd normally call a "drug." Samples from research marijuana also showed lower levels of both tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) — the stuff that makes cannabis psychoactive — and cannabidiol (CBD) compared to what one normally finds on the street. "I personally don’t think they're providing something that’s similar to what any patient could get their hands on," Schwabe told *Nature*. The crop “doesn’t look like marijuana, it doesn’t smell like marijuana." ## Basically Catnip A [preprint of Schwabe's research]() was published last month in the preprint archive *bioRxiv*. The Drug Enforcement Administration has yet to approve any institutions — despite hundreds of unanswered applications, according to *Nature* — to grow marijuana for research other than the University of Mississippi, after [announcing in 2016]() it was going to allow other institutions to do so. Other researchers in the field still want to study other genetic markers before saying conclusively that the University of Mississippi's hookup isn't good enough for scientific research. But they do agree on one thing: cannabis research would get a whole lot more accurate by giving permission to other institutions to grow their own. **READ MORE:** [Cannabis used in US research differs genetically to the varieties people smoke]() \[*Nature*\] **More on cannabis research:** *[Study: THC Has More Therapeutic Benefits Than We Thought]()* ## Author I've been at Futurism since 2017, where my role has evolved to encompass design, writing, and increasingly editing. I've always been fascinated by space exploration and advanced transportation, which I've leaned into by interviewing luminaries in those fields while closely following the dimensions of policy and regulation that allow next-generation projects to succeed -- or, sometimes, to fail. I'm also keenly interested in the effects of generative AI on society, policies, and democratic institutions, as well as clean energy, physics and biology, and the vagaries of tech leadership. My work for Futurism has been cited by publications including Ars Technica, Gizmodo, PC Magazine, Jalopnik, Fox News, and the New York Post. I spent my childhood living in locations including Manila, the Philippines, and Geneva, Switzerland, attended McGill University, and now live in Toronto, Canada. Before Futurism I worked at AskMen and a small photography studio. In my free time, I'm an avid gardener, foodie, and craft beer lover, as well as a maker of artisanal hot pepper sauces. I have a magnificent dog named Freida. ### Author social links [Bluesky]()