“In the cannabis world, actual science doesn’t really exist in this space. And until it becomes legal federally there will not be any meaningful progress. We need to allow scientists to conduct their research and give us the results. Right now, it’s mostly silver bullets and snake oil.”
As most of you working with cannabis know, serious science is among the missing and until it becomes legal federally there will not be any meaningful progress. We need to allow scientists (like the folks in the picture) to conduct their research and give us the results. So why do I keep seeing all these self-proclaimed “cannabis scientists” on social media and LinkedIn? Because once things became less risky we had a giant influx of grifters into the scene. Before you think I’m telling you data and science don’t matter, they do. They are the basic tools you need for your grow and processing. But some people are using “science” that doesn’t exist yet to gain relevance and credibility.
If you are a grower/producer, finding someone who can help with the science side of it sounds like a good idea – as long as you aren’t running into one of these self-proclaimed “cannabis scientists.” Here’s some information about common grifter phenotypes so you know what to look out for.
Cannabis Scientist: Mostly they are conducting scientific experiments that don’t follow the scientific method, but they use the results to make money filling speaker slots at events and get paid for articles by people who need something for their website and social media posts. These people aren’t scientists. They’re more like “influencers” who are collecting entertaining content for bored people to listen to or read.
Genetics/Genome Cannabis Scientist: These people LOVE to tell you sativa and indica are being used wrong when describing needle leaf, long flower, and anxiety inducing strains vs short and short flowering sedative strains. It’s the same thing with the term genetic drift. They love to say you’re using that term wrong but they don’t provide alternative terms that would capture what we are referring to. Why? According to the PhDs that actually grow plants, its because the science doesn’t exist yet. Colleges, at best, are able to get a hemp permit and do some research after the Farm Bill passed a couple years ago. But academia doesn’t have the resources to offer study or a degree in cannabis so they make up the title “cannabis/scientist” And people think it’s a real degree. The truth about these “cannabis scientists” is that at best they have a limited text book idea of what they are talking about. Most can’t even hold a decent conversation with a real grower/breeder. A few of these people maybe helped a little with some hemp grows but most could not know a high end jar of hash if their life depended on it.
Terpene Scientist: I don’t even know where to start, but neither do they. “I should buy limonene strains because they are uplifting?” Really? Are you serious? So according to these so-called “terpene scientists”, the major cannabinoids along with the 550 compounds that make up the cannabis plant should be a single compound that’s a small percentage of the solution in those trichome heads? We don’t have nearly enough data or understanding to think the major cannabinoids and the 12 terpenes we test for is going to give an accurate picture of the, taste, smell and effects. We’re still missing information about how these cannabinoids impact people on an individual basis.
Testing People: We know the data is incomplete. We test for very little outside of major cannabinoids and a few terpenes. You see rosin with 11% terps that looks dry AF, wet looking rosin testing at 4% terps. Flower and concentrates that look basically identical on paper with the limited data, but have wildly different smells, looks and effects. Don’t even get me started on the “pay to play” for every strain with over 35% THC in the finished flower but looks and smokes like mids.
BHO Scientist: These guys can turn biomass to diamonds and terps in two seconds but they often get caught up in the science of making all their extracts taste the exact same way. They forget the best concentrates are simply made from the best biomass with the least amount of processing. Splitting it into 19 different jars, filtering through 5 pounds of clays, then crashing, solvent washing, and recombing can make very bad starting material look better. All their jars look the same, taste the same, and often feel a bit cracky as they are removing some of the synergistic compounds that add to the overall effect. Low end inputs can be cleaned up to look better but they still create low end concentrates.
Lastly and lovingly – The Crystal Hippie Crew: Mostly these are all great people. But let’s be honest. If you are telling us you grow your plants on 3rd moons with fog at a certain sacred hour because terpene vibrations are best when Mercury is in retrograde, it’s not helpful scientific information. “Hippie Science” tends to have even less science behind it than “Cannabis Science”. So maybe it’s time to come back to earth and realize we should use the word “science” for real scientific data. And in the cannabis space right now there’s not much real science.
My Personal Experience: As and breeder myself, I personally don’t use any data until my last round. Let me just look at a plant, smell it and touch it in its last couple days of flower. I can tell you generally within a 1% margin of what it’ll hash at. Let me wash it and I can tell you if it was a weak neck at the abscission point and if the head itself was fully stable or if it has some weak structure for collection. I can tell you the percentage of heads that will be a premium product vs 2nd tier or food grade. Let me see how it cures and let 3 different people with differing preferences on taste and effect all take a big dab. Then use the data and science to get the best yield you can while maintaining the profile.