Most IRB Chairs Can't Recognize Exempt Research or Non-Research

A study of criminal justice researchers' knowledge of IRB rules has found that IRB chairs can't agree on what makes a project exempt from review and think that IRB review is needed for public records. The authors of the study, one of whom is an IRB chair, seem not to realize the significance of these findings.

[Tartaro, Christine, and Marissa P. Levy. "Criminal Justice Professionals' Knowledge of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Compliance with IRB Protocol." Journal of Criminal Justice Education 25, no. 3 (2014): 321–41. doi:10.1080/10511253.2014.902982.]

Quebec Court Shields Confidential Interview from Police

A Quebec court has quashed a search warrant for an interview given in confidence by accused killer Luka Magnotta to University of Ottawa researchers. The court agrees with the professors that "the public interest in protecting researcher-participant confidentiality in general, and in the specific circumstances of this case, clearly outweighs what minimal contribution, if any, the release of the seized items will make to the prosecution of the accused in the criminal proceeding." (2)

[Parent c. R., 2014 QCCS 132. h/t Will C. van den Hoonaard]

Boston College Oral History Roundup

I rely on the exceptionally thorough Boston College Subpoena News for updates on the efforts of the United Kingdom and United States governments to get access to oral history interviews of participants in Northern Ireland's Troubles, but I feel I should flag three items of special interest to readers of this blog.

REB Members Beg U of Ottawa to Defend Confidentiality

IRB apologists sometimes argue that IRB review is necessary to ensure that universities will defend researchers and their participants from litigation. Boston College Subpoena News reminds us that ethics approval is no guarantee of such support.

[“News of Interest: Canadian Academics Strongly Defend Research Confidentiality, Call for University Support of Researchers.” Boston College Subpoena News, April 9, 2013. http://bostoncollegesubpoena.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/news-of-interest-canadian-academics-strongly-defend-research-confidentiality-call-for-university-support-of-researchers/.]

Moskos Plugs Ethical Imperialism

Peter Moskos gives a a kind mention to Ethical Imperialism on his blog.

Moskos has nicer things to say about flogging than about IRB review.

Criminologists: IRB Demands Threatened Confidentiality

Two professors of criminal justice--Mitch Librett of Bridgewater State College and Dina Perrone of California State University at Long Beach--describe IRB demands that endangered research participants. They suggest that "the oversight element and informed consent requirement of IRBs may in fact represent the greatest threat to the well-being of participants, which is contrary to the mission, purpose and objective of IRBs."

[Mitch Librett and Dina Perrone, "Apples and Oranges: Ethnography and the IRB," Qualitative Research 10 (2010): 729-747, DOI: 10.1177/1468794110380548.]

Cautious Optimism on Canada's TCPS2

Ted Palys and John Lowman of the School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, find that the second edition of Canada's Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2), released in December 2010, offers significant improvements over the first edition of 1998.

[Ted Palys and John Lowman, "What's Been Did and What's Been Hid: Reflections on TCPS2," 18 January 2011]

A Few More Words on TCPS 2009

Ted Palys and John Lowman of Simon Fraser University kindly sent me a copy of their comments on the latest draft of the TCPS. The also alerted me to the Novel Tech Ethics site, which is publishing various comments on the draft.

Palys and Lowman find the latest draft to be an improvement over the December 2008 version, but they remain dissatisfied with elements of its treatment of social science research. Their main concern is that REBs will remain "dominated by members who have no specialized knowledge of the practices in a particular discipline can undermine the integrity of ethics review and, all too often, make it a process to be undertaken and survived instead of a discussion to be welcomed." To remedy this, they suggest that institutions be encouraged to establish multiple REBs with expertise in particular areas. They also make a number of suggestions for smaller reforms.

While Palys and Lowman have a number of significant concerns, it's worth noting that their comments on this draft are generally much warmer than their critique of the 2008 draft. This confirms my sense that while the latest TCPS has serious flaws, it is the best effort yet to include the concerns of social scientists into a general research ethics document.

Since today is the deadline for comments, I submitted an addendum to my February 6 comments:

To the Panel on Research Ethics,

On February 6 I submitted comments on the Revised Draft 2nd Edition of the TCPS (December 2009). I would like to amplify those comments slightly.

In my earlier comments, I noted my concern with Chapter 5's language warning about the possible stigmatization of groups. As I stated, I believe that this should not be the basis for restricting research in the social sciences and humanities.

Since then, I have reread the report, and I came across the following language in chapter 1:

The welfare of groups can also be affected by research. Groups may benefit from the knowledge gained from the research, but they may also suffer from stigmatization, discrimination or damage to reputation. Engagement during the design process with groups whose welfare may be affected by the research can help to clarify the potential impact of the research and indicate where any negative impact on welfare can be minimized. Researchers must also consider the risks and potential benefits of their research and the knowledge it might generate for the welfare of society as a whole. Where research on individuals may affect the welfare of a group(s), the weight given to the group’s welfare will depend on the nature of the research being undertaken and the individuals or group in question. This consideration does not imply, however, that the welfare of a group should be given priority over the welfare of individuals.

Again, let me emphasize that legitimate, critical research in the social sciences and humanities often is damaging to groups. As Edward Shils noted in 1973, "Any factual description, however objective and true, might be offensive to those who are sensitive and whose actions and qualities are such as to fall short of reasonable standards." I therefore do not consider the passage on group harms to reflect "core principles [that] transcend disciplinary boundaries and therefore, are relevant to the full range of research covered by this Policy."

Canadian Criminologists Decry TCPS Draft

Back in January, I mentioned the release of the Draft 2nd Edition of the Tri‐Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, prepared by Canada's Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics, or PRE.

Ted Palys and John Lowman of the School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, kindly alerted me to their critique of the draft, or TCPS-2, as they term it. (They even more kindly cited this blog in their work.) They find that TCPS-2 "poses a significant threat to academic freedom in Canada." (3)

Their 20-page critique, "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Draft TCPS-2’s Assault on Academic Freedom," is all meat and no fat, and I recommend that it be read in its entirety. But here are a few salient points.