Letter to the Editor: Ordering the Chaos in Cannabinoid-Related Research: Is It Time for a Task Force on Taxonomy?

University of Groningen

Letter to the Editor

Schrader, Nicholas H. B.; Bolling, Marieke C.; Wolff, Andre P.

Cannabis and cannabinoid research DOI:

10.1089/can.2020.0145

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2020

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Schrader, N. H. B., Bolling, M. C., & Wolff, A. P. (2020). Letter to the Editor: Ordering the Chaos in Cannabinoid-Related Research: Is It Time for a Task Force on Taxonomy? Cannabis and cannabinoid research. https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2020.0145

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Letter to the Editor: Ordering the Chaos

in Cannabinoid-Related Research:

Is It Time for a Task Force on Taxonomy?

Nicholas H.B. Schra¨der,1Marieke C. Bolling,1and Andre´ P. Wolff2

To the editor of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, the cannabinoid research associations and institutes, and to the scientific community endeavoring the field of cannabinoid-related research:

An increasing number of countries are loosening restrictions on both recreational and medical cannabi-noid use, which has inevitably led to growing scientific in-terest. In fact, cannabinoid research is one of the fastest growing scientific fields, seeing exponential number of publications per year on topics spanning therapeutic, preventive, and basic research in numerous diseases.1

As a result of expanding research, there is an increas-ing heterogeneity of terminology in this immense data set. One can get lost in the numerous terms describing cannabinoid-related substances, their chemical constit-uents, and biological derivatives. We can already see the natural evolution of scientifically appropriated cannabinoid-related terminology moving from ordered to chaotic, where a simple literature search must encom-pass multiple terms, such as cannabis, cannabinoids, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, cannabidiol, CBD, marijuana, nabilone, dronabinol, and nabiximols, taken from the search query of a recent meta-analysis.

The problem with heterogeneous terminology for cannabinoid-related science is that it facilitates con-fusion among both new and established scientists. In the absence of a framework, researchers are likely to harness imprecise nomenclature used within their net-work, leading to the fragmentation of fields of thought. Without uniform communication, authors are obliged to develop their own classifications whereby research

studies cannot reliably be compared. This is a signifi-cant hurdle to the scientific community who wish to communicate sound and reproducible research, and in-ternational organizations such as the United Nations, who are impaired in their decision making ‘‘.by a lack of international standards on issues such as termi-nology,’’ with respect to cannabinoid-related policy.2 It must go without saying that harnessing the benefits from a terminological consensus will excel the efficiency in cannabinoid-related scientific research (from basic sci-ence through clinical trials and meta-analyses), stream-line collaboration, and maintain coherent education.

Of recent example, we highlight evolving terminol-ogy from the sativa-indica debate in which research concluded that the ubiquitous interbreeding and hybridization of these rendered their distinctions meaningless. The fruit of this debate resulted in a well-founded incorporation and use of the term chemovar, providing a more accurate description of cannabis’ chemical variety.3Despite the importance of this implica-tion, it may yet remain dormant to much of the scientific community until a formal introduction is made.

The lack of a taxonomy consensus is not unique to cannabinoid-related science, and has frequently been addressed in a number of scientific fields. Recent his-tory has shown us that cooperative consolidation of nomenclature, based on scientific consensus, leads to improvement and efficiency of patient-related health care, and remains an ongoing process.4 We can also take example from The International Association for the Study of Pain that, when presented with increas-ingly heterogeneous nomenclature, created a ‘‘Task Departments of1

Dermatology and2

Anesthesiology Pain Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. *Address correspondence to: Nicholas H.B. Schra¨der, MD, Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen 9700RB, the Netherlands, E-mail: n.h.b.schrader@umcg.nl

ª Nicholas H.B. Schra¨der et al., 2020; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research Volume X, Number X, 2020 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/can.2020.0145

Force on Taxonomy,’’ laying the foundation to a con-sensus on international standards for the diagnosis of chronic pain conditions. Furthermore, catalyzed by increasing complexity and often contradictory defini-tions for cardiomyopathy, the American Heart Associ-ation formulated a rigorous classificAssoci-ation system to centralize further dividing schools of thought.

The unmet need for a taxonomy consensus in the field of cannabinoid research is no fault of the sci-entists, but is due to the intricate nature of this vastly expanding field. As we endeavor and discover more, cannabinoid-related terminology will change, terms become futile, and definitions not up to date. A taxon-omy for cannabinoid-related science should be dy-namic, allowing for adaptations when new research tells us otherwise. Cannabinoid-related scientific ter-minology should be overseen and systematically reg-ulated. It should include the expert opinion and management of already established organizations that have addressed the ambiguity of nomenclature for the innumerous cultigens.

At the core of this field of research are the scientific societies, the International Cannabinoid Research Soci-ety (ICRS) and International Association for Cannabi-noid Medicines (IACM), which must take the first step in a taxonomy consensus. Irrespective of whether you as a reader accept this proposal, let this be a corner-stone to finding order in the chaos.

We, therefore, would like to encourage the experts in cannabinoid-related science and the wider scientific

community to endeavor the formation of a task force on taxonomy that can be used on all levels of scientific research and education. To develop a classification sys-tem that is pragmatic and all-encompassing, yet pre-cise. One that can be looked up to in the worldwide scientific community.

Sincerely,

A fellow clinician and researcher, Nicholas H.B. Schra¨der, MD.

References

1. Treister-Goltzman Y, Freud T, Press Y, et al. Trends in publications on medical cannabis from the year 2000. Popul Health Manag. 2019;22: 362–368.

2. Leggett T. A review of the world cannabis situation. Bull Narc. 2006;58: 1–155.

3. Hazekamp A, Tejkalova´ K, Papadimitriou S. Cannabis: from cultivar to chemovar II—A metabolomics approach to cannabis classification. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2016;1:202–215.

4. Chute CG. Clinical classification and terminology: some history and current observations. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:298–303.

Cite this article as: Schra¨der NHB, Bolling MC, Wolff AP (2020) Letter to the Editor: Ordering the chaos in cannabinoid-related research: is it time for a task force on taxonomy? Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research X:X, 1–2, DOI: 10.1089/can.2020.0145.

Abbreviations Used

CBD¼ cannabidiol

IACM¼ International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines ICRS¼ International Cannabinoid Research Society THC¼ tetrahydrocannabinol