Supervised consumption sites (SCS) are interventions supported by decades of evidence and yet remain subject to considerable politicization. A coalition of leading researchers from across Canada published an analysis and accompanying commentary in the International Journal of Drug Policy outlining major flaws and other issues with a study published by researchers with Alberta’s Centre of Recovery Excellence (CoRE) describing the impacts of the closure of a SCS in Red Deer, Alberta.

Among the problems were a range of methodological flaws, undisclosed conflicts of interest, links to Alberta’s government that were not disclosed, and statements by the authors, including the lead author, misrepresenting the study findings. This case sheds further light on the challenges related to communicating the scientific record on effective overdose prevention interventions. Given that the Alberta study was used to justify the closure of supervised consumption services by the governments of Alberta and Ontario, it also reveals how flawed scientific reports can lead to concerning policy decisions.