Dear all,
Ah, ethics reviews… Although I support the
overall need to have a board that reviews all research
projects for ethical concerns, I find the process a bit
difficult, time-consuming and sometimes frustrating.
Thank you Dan for bringing this to our
attention.
Perhaps it may be helpful to know what is
being done in similar institutions (UBC, UVIC, UofA, UofT,
etc.)? For comparisons?
Also, I find this new language shockingly …
inappropriate for a process that is supposed to be supportive
and helpful for researchers. As it was suggested, maybe there
has been a strand of inappropriate projects carried on? I
don’t know.
But it appears that the process should be
halted for a bit more consultation?
All the best,
Christian
I may not be
able to answer emails immediately, but I will do my best
to respond within 48 hours.
Christian Guilbault
Department of
French
guilbaul@sfu.ca
(Pronouns: he/him/his)
I stand in
solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement in the US
and around the world and I condemn any institutionalized,
social or individual forms of racial, ethnic,
gender-based, socio-economic or cultural discriminations
against targeted groups and minorities.
I respectfully acknowledge that SFU is on the
unceded ancestral and traditional territories of the
səl̓ilw̓ətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh
Úxwumixw (Squamish), xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) and
kʷikʷəƛ̓əm (Kwikwetlem) Nations.
Nous
reconnaissons que nous vivons et travaillons sur les
territoires non cédés et traditionnels des peuples Salish
du Littoral, les nations səl̓ilw̓ətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh),
Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish), xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) et kʷikʷəƛ̓əm
(Kwikwetlem).
Meanwhile ethics
reviews take longer and longer (compromising the validity
of the research in other ways) and I have found errors in
my last ones that required push back on my part.
Most
concerning is this heavy-handed right to all my research
data and materials:
p.
11/20: The "Investigation Committee" can "obtain
written or electronic materials relevant to the
Allegation(s) such as laboratory notebooks,
manuscripts, files and records." So basically all
research data and materials.
BTW,
the "Investigation Committee" = "VPRI will instruct
the RIO [Research Integrity Officer]
to appoint an Investigation Committee...The
Investigation Committee will include members who have
the necessary expertise to assess the Allegation and
to conduct the Investigation, and who are without
Conflict of Interest. The Investigation Committee
shall include at least one external member with no
current affiliation with the University."
SFU
retains all the power to decide what constitutes
"necessary expertise". As if any given RIO would know
what that looks like for all of our disciplines
and all of our professional standards.
In
what is proposed, both the allegation 'discovery'
process and the adjudication are stacked.
Thanks,
Dan, for bringing this to our attention. A last
question: Why this effort? Is it a response? Have
there been a rash of research ethics breeches at SFU?
Susan
Erikson
Hi all,
Senate will be reviewing an update to
the Research Ethics policy on Monday. In reviewing the
policy update, I’m concerned that once again the policy
is being written in such a way as to give the University
unlimited disciplinary power [see the discussion around
the travel policy that used the same language]. That
said, I thought I’d run the policy by this list for your
thoughts as well. The policy proposal can be found at: https://docushare.sfu.ca/dsweb/Get/Document-1748527/S.21-112.pdf.
My concerns are three-fold—at the
lower end, I’m concerned about the overuse of
meaningless value words in a policy document. For
example:
• 5.2.2 [Each person who engages in
Research] is expected and required to be thoroughly
familiar with and to comply with the
scholarly standards and practices that are generally
accepted in the academic community and their scholarly
field, and to comply with those standards honestly, accountably,
openly, and fairly. <— These words
add no value to the statement, which calls for
compliance. Whether that compliance to standards is
honest, accountable, open and fair really doesn’t
matter (and would arguably be a matter of conjecture).
Of slightly more concern is use of
the phrase, "scholarly standards and practices that are
generally accepted in the academic community.” Scholarly
standards and practices are important, and “minimum”
standards are defined in Section 1.1. That said,
generally accepted standards are not defined anywhere in
the document and would seem to embrace an expansion
beyond “minimum” but inclusive of some debate (as they
are not “universally" accepted, just, “generally"
accepted).
Of primary concern, however, is
section 5.9, Consequences:
• 5.9 Individuals found to have
Breached this policy may lose the privilege of
conducting Research and may also be subject to
sanctions or discipline or other action under this or
other University policies and procedures, applicable
collective agreements, and applicable law.
Here we once again threaten faculty
with undefined, and therefore, unlimited "sanctions or
discipline or other actions”. Later in the document they
expand on possible sanctions, but note that other
undefined sanctions might still be applied: “7.3
...Sanctions may include but are not limited to: reprimand,
suspension, and/or dismissal.”
Finally, while appeal is permitted
under the policy, appeal is only possible if there was a
procedural error or a factual error. The appropriateness
of the sanctions are not a grounds for appeal:
• 9.3 The grounds for an appeal to
the President under section 9.2 are:
• 9.3.1 procedural deficiencies
occurred of sufficient magnitude that it may
reasonably be said to have affected the fairness of
the process or altered the outcome of the case; or
• 9.3.2 a factual error of
sufficient magnitude was made that it may reasonably
be said to have altered the outcome of the case.
We all want to adhere to the highest
ethical standards in our work, but those standards
should be clearly defined, fairly adjudicated, and
reasonably enforced. Unlimited and unappealable
punishments should not be ensconced in policy.
I’m happy (hoping?) to be told I’m
wrong, but to me this seems like sloppy policy work and
administrative overreach. Thoughts?