Drug Researchers Often Have Personal Drug-Use Experience, but Few Discuss It in Their Scholarship

A survey of 669 drug researchers across 43 countries found that personal drug-use experience is common in the field, but professional disclosure remains limited. Published in 2024 in Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports, the cross-sectional study by Ompad and colleagues found that 86% of respondents reported lifetime use of at least one drug other than alcohol, while 47% reported use during the previous three months.

The study examined not only whether researchers had used drugs, but also whether they disclosed that experience—and whether it influenced their work. Among the 557 respondents who reported drug use, 59% had told colleagues at their own institution and a similar proportion had disclosed it to colleagues elsewhere. Disclosure was less common with research participants, at 25%, and only 11% said they had acknowledged their drug use in their research or scholarship.

Those figures point to a professional tension at the center of drug research. Researchers may be criticized as biased if they have used drugs, yet questioned about their understanding of drug use if they have not. The study’s title—“He’s used drugs—he’s biased! He’s not a drug user—what would he know!”—captures that apparent double bind.

Experience may shape research, but disclosure carries risks

Respondents described personal experience as potentially useful at several stages of the research process. It could help researchers identify overlooked questions, understand the language and social settings surrounding drug use, build trust with participants, and interpret findings with greater contextual awareness. Some participants also argued that acknowledging their own position could make research more transparent.

At the same time, many feared that disclosure would undermine perceptions of objectivity or professional competence. Concerns included damage to career prospects, relationships with employers and colleagues, access to funding, and credibility with policymakers or the public. The risks were especially pronounced for researchers discussing current or prohibited drug use rather than past use, recovery, or medically supervised use.

The researchers connect these concerns to the broader stigma attached to drug use. Silence can appear neutral, but it may also leave researchers’ perspectives and assumptions unexamined. The authors argue that a “don’t ask, don’t tell” culture can reinforce the separation between researchers and the people they study, potentially narrowing the questions that get asked and the forms of knowledge that are treated as legitimate.

Cannabis was the most commonly reported substance

Among all respondents, the most frequently reported lifetime experience involved marijuana, hashish, or THC: 81.8% said they had used one of these substances. Hallucinogens or psychedelics were reported by 50.2%, and cocaine by 46.2%. Past-three-month use was lower: 35.0% reported recent cannabis use, compared with 9.9% for hallucinogens or psychedelics and 6.7% for cocaine.

Disclosure was also shaped by the substance involved and its legal or social status. Respondents generally felt more comfortable discussing cannabis or psychedelic use than cocaine, heroin, or injection drug use. In other words, “drug use” was not treated as a single category: the perceived consequences of disclosure varied according to the substance, the researcher’s location, and the audience.

The survey also found differences in how respondents described their identities. About 17.8% considered themselves “out” as people who use drugs, while 34.1% identified as occasional people who use drugs. More than half, 55.4%, identified as people who do not use drugs. These categories were not necessarily a simple reflection of lifetime experience; they also reflected how participants understood and labeled their current relationship to drug use.

A narrow sample limits what the survey can show

The respondents were highly educated: 87.5% reported postgraduate education, and 79.4% worked in academia. The average age was 41.8 years. Among U.S. respondents, 77.8% identified as White. Participants were recruited through targeted online outreach, including professional networks, email invitations, social media, referrals, conferences, and organizations connected to drug use.

Those characteristics are important when interpreting the results. This was not a random or representative survey of everyone working in drug research. People with strong views about drug use, lived experience, or disclosure may have been more likely to participate. The findings therefore describe the experiences of this recruited group rather than establish the prevalence of drug use among the entire research community.

Nor can the cross-sectional design show that personal drug use improves research or causes researchers to ask different questions. The study documents respondents’ experiences and perceptions, but it does not test whether researchers with drug-use experience produce more accurate, less biased, or methodologically stronger work.

Objectivity and reflexivity are not the same thing

The authors do not argue that researchers should disclose their drug use publicly, or that lived experience automatically produces better scholarship. Instead, they call for more thoughtful discussion of positionality: how a researcher’s background, identity, relationships, and experiences may influence the questions they ask, the people they recruit, and the way they interpret evidence.

This argument builds on earlier work, including the 2020 paper on stigma, reflexivity, and drug researchers’ disclosure, which similarly described disclosure as a personal decision involving potential academic benefits as well as legal, professional, and social risks. Reflexivity does not require a confession, and disclosure alone is not a guarantee of rigor. It does require researchers to recognize that all scholarship begins from a particular social and professional position.

The survey’s central message is therefore less about how many researchers have used drugs than about what the field permits them to say about that experience. Creating safer and more inclusive ways to discuss lived experience—including through peer research, collaborative methods, and confidential institutional conversations—could broaden the perspectives that shape drug research without treating personal experience as either proof of expertise or evidence of bias.