Research Ethics Review
Download Ethics Review Application (Writeable PDF)
ST. STEPHEN’S COLLEGE
ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR RESEARCH
INVOLVING HUMANS
Adapted from the Tri-Council Policy Statement of the Medical Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
August 1998.
Article 1.1
-
All research that involves living human subjects requires review and approval by an REC in accordance with this Policy Statement, before the research is started, except as stipulated below.
-
Research about a living individual involved in the public area, or about an artist, based exclusively on publicly available information, documents, records, works performances, archival materials or third-party interviews, is not required to undergo ethics review. Such research only requires ethics review if the subject is approached directly for interviews or for access to private papers, and then only to ensure that such approaches are conducted according to professional protocols and to Article 2.3 of this Policy.
Article 1.2
The institution in which research involving human subjects is carried out shall mandate the REC to approve, reject, propose modifications to, or terminate any proposed or ongoing research involving human subjects which is conducted within, or by members of, the institution, using the considerations set forth in this Policy as the minimum standard.
Article 1.3
The REC shall consist of at least a nine person committee,
a) At least three members have broad expertise in the methods or in the areas of research that are covered by the REC;
b) At least three members knowledgeable in ethics; and
c) At least three members who have no affiliation with institution, but are recruited from the community served by the institution.
Article 1.4
-
The REC shall satisfy itself that the design of a research project that poses more than minimal risk is capable of addressing the questions being asked in the research.
-
The extent of the review for scholarly standards that is required for biomedical research that does not involve more than minimal risk will vary according to the research being carried out.
-
Research in the humanities and the social sciences which poses, at most, minimal risks shall not normally be required by the REC to be peer reviewed.
-
Certain types of research, particularly in the social sciences and the humanities, may legitimately have a negative effect on public figures in politics, business, labour, the arts or other walks of life, or on organizations. Such research should not be blocked through the use of harms/benefits analysis or because of the potentially negative nature of the findings. The safeguard for those in the public arena is through public debate and discourse and, in extremis, through action in the courts for libel.
Article 1.5
The REC should adopt a proportionate approach based on the general principle that the more invasive the research, the greater should be the care in assessing the research.
Article 1.6
RECs shall meet regularly to discharge their responsibilities.
Article 1.7
Minutes of all REC meetings shall be prepared and maintained by the REC. The minutes shall clearly document the REC's decisions and any dissents, and the reasons for them. In order to assist internal and external audits or research monitoring, and to facilitate reconsideration or appeals, the minutes must be accessible to authorized representatives of the institution, researchers and funding agencies.
Article 1.8
RECs shall meet face-to-face to review proposed research that is not delegated to expedited review. REC review shall be based upon fully detailed research proposals or, where applicable, progress reports. The REC shall function impartially, provide a fair hearing to those involved and provide reasoned and appropriately documented opinions and decisions. The REC shall accommodate reasonable requests from researchers to participate in discussions about their proposals, but not be present when the REC is making its decision. When an REC is considering a negative decision, it shall provide the researcher with all the reasons for doing so and give the researcher an opportunity to reply before making a final decision.
Article 1.9
Researchers have the right to request, and RECs have an obligation to provide, reconsideration of decisions affecting a research project.
Article 1.10
In cases when researchers and RECs can not reach agreement through discussion and reconsideration, an institution should permit review of a REC decision by an appeal board, provided that the board 's membership and procedures meet the requirements of this Policy. No ad hoc appeal boards are permitted.
Article 1.11
If an REC is reviewing research in which a member of the REC has a personal interest in the research under review (e.g., as a researcher or as an entrepreneur), conflict of interest principles require that the member not be present when the REC is discussing or making its decision. The REC member may disclose and explain the conflict of interest and offer evidence to the REC provided the conflict is fully explained to the REC, and the proposer of the research has the right to hear the evidence and to offer a rebuttal.
Article 1.12
- Ongoing research shall be subject to continuing ethics review. The rigour of the review should be in accordance with a proportionate approach to ethics assessment.
- As part of each research proposal submitted for REC review, the researcher shall propose to the REC the continuing review process deemed appropriate for that project.
- Normally, continuing review should consist of at least the submission of a succinct annual status report to the REC. The REC shall be promptly notified when the project concludes.
Article 1.13
Research to be performed outside the jurisdiction or country of the institution which employs the researcher shall undergo prospective ethics review both (a) by the REC within the researcher's institution; and (b) by the REC, where such exists, with the legal responsibility and equivalent ethical and procedural safeguards in the country or jurisdiction where the research is to be done.
Article 2.1
- Research governed by this Policy (see Article 1.1) may begin only if (1) prospective subjects, or authorized third parties, have been given the opportunity to give free and informed consent about participation, and (2) their free and informed consent has been given and is maintained throughout their participation in the research. Articles 2.1(c), 2.3 and 2.8 provide exceptions to Article 2.1(a).
- Evidence of free and informed consent by the subject or authorized third party should ordinarily be obtained in writing. Where written consent is culturally unacceptable, or where there are good reasons for not recording consent in writing, the procedures used to seek free and informed consent shall be documented.
- The REC may approve a consent procedure1 which does not include, or which alters, some or all of the elements of informed consent set forth above, or waive the requirement to obtain informed consent, provided that the REC finds and documents that:
- The research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects;
- The waiver or alteration is unlikely to adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects;
- The research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver alteration;
- Whenever possible and appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation; and
- The waivered or altered consent does not involve a therapeutic intervention.
- In studies including randomization and blinding in clinical trials, neither the research subjects nor those responsible for their care know which treatment the subjects are receiving before the project commences. Such research is not regarded as a waiver or alteration of the requirements for consent if subjects are informed of the probability of being randomly assigned to one arm of the study or another.
Article 2.2
Free and informed consent must be voluntarily given, without manipulation, undue influence or coercion.
Article 2.3
REC review is normally required for research involving naturalistic observation. However, research involving observation of participants in, for example, political rallies, demonstrations or public meetings should not require REC review since it can be expected that the participants are seeking public visibility.
Article 2.4
Researchers shall provide, to prospective subjects or authorized third parties, full and frank disclosure of all information relevant to free and informed consent. Throughout the free and informed consent process, the researcher must ensure that prospective subjects are given adequate opportunities to discuss and contemplate their participation. Subject to the exception in Article 2.1(c), at the commencement of the free and informed consent process, researchers or their qualified designated representatives shall provide prospective subjects with the following:
- Information that the individual is being invited to participate in a research project;
- A comprehensible statement of the research purpose, the identity of the researcher, the expected duration and nature of participation, and a description of research procedures;
- A comprehensible description of reasonably foreseeable harms and benefits that may arise from research participation, as well as the likely consequences of non-action, particularly in research related to treatment, or where invasive methodologies are involved, or where there is a potential for physical or psychological harm;
- An assurance that prospective subjects are free not to participate, have the right to withdraw at any time without prejudice to pre-existing entitlements, and will be given continuing and meaningful opportunities for deciding whether or not to continue to participate; and
- The possibility of commercialization of research findings, and the presence of any apparent or actual or potential conflict of interest on the part of researchers, their institutions or sponsors.
In light of (b) and (c) , RECs may require researchers to provide below:
Additional information that may be required for some projects
The ways in which the research results will be published, and how the subjects will be informed of the results of the research. |
Article 2.5
Subject to applicable legal requirements, individuals who are not legally competent shall only be asked to become research subjects when:
- the research question can only be addressed using individuals within the identified group(s); and
- free and informed consent will be sought from their authorized representative(s); and
- the research does not expose them to more than minimal risks without the potential for direct benefits for them.
Article 2.6
For research involving incompetent individuals, the REC shall ensure that, as a minimum, the following conditions are met:
- The researcher shall show how the free and informed consent will be sought from the authorized third party, and how the subjects' best interests will be protected.
- The authorized third party may not be the researcher or any other member of the research team.
- The continued free and informed consent of an appropriately authorized third party will be required to continue the participation of a legally incompetent subject in research, so long as the subject remains incompetent.
- When a subject who was entered into a research project through third-party authorization becomes competent during the project, his or her informed consent shall be sought as a condition of continuing participation.
Article 2.7
Where free and informed consent has been obtained from an authorized third party, and in those circumstances where the legally incompetent individual understands the nature and consequences of the research, the researcher shall seek to ascertain the wishes of the individual concerning participation. The potential subject's dissent will preclude his or her participation.
Article 3.1
Subject to the exceptions in Article 1.1(c), researchers who intend to interview a human subject to secure identifiable personal information shall secure REC approval for the interview procedure used and shall ensure the free and informed consent of the interviewee as required in Article 2.4. As indicated in Article 1.1, REC approval is not required for access to publicly available information or materials, including archival documents and records of public interviews or performances.
Article 3.2
Subject to Article 3.1 above, researchers shall secure REC approval for obtaining identifiable personal information about subjects. Approval for such research shall include such considerations as:
- The type of data to be collected;
- The purpose for the which the data will be used;
- Limits on the use, disclosure and retention of the data;
- Appropriate safeguards for security and confidentiality;
- Any modes of observation (e.g., photographs or videos) or access to information (e.g., sound recordings) in the research that allow identification of particular subjects;
- Any anticipated secondary uses of identifiable data from the research;
- Any anticipated linkage of data gathered in the research with other data about subjects, whether those data are contained in public or personal records; and
- Provisions for confidentiality of data resulting from the research.
Article 3.3
If identifying information is involved, REC approval shall be sought for secondary uses of data. Researchers may gain access to identifying information if they have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the REC that:
- Identifying information is essential to the research; and
- They will take appropriate measures to protect the privacy of the individuals, to ensure the confidentiality of the data, and to minimize harms to subjects;
- Individuals to whom the data refer have not objected to secondary use
Article 3.4
The REC may also require that a researcher's access to secondary use of data
involving identifying information be dependent on:
- The informed consent of those who contributed data or of authorized third parties; or
- An appropriate strategy for informing the subjects; or
- Consultation with representatives of those who contributed data.
Article 3.5
Researchers who wish to contact individuals to whom data refer shall seek the authorization of the REC prior to contact.
Article 3.6
The implications of approved data linkage in which research subjects may be identifiable shall be approved by the REC.
Article 4.1
Researchers and REC members shall disclose actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest to the REC. RECs should develop mechanisms to address and resolve conflicts of interest.
Article 5.1
- Where research is designed to survey a number of living research subjects because of their involvement in generic activities (e.g., in many areas of health research or in some social science research such as studies of child poverty or of access to legal clinics) that are not specific to particular identifiable groups, researchers shall not exclude prospective or actual research subjects on the basis of such attributes as culture, religion, race, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, sex or age, unless there is a valid reason for doing so.
- This article is not intended to preclude research focused on a single living individual (such as in a biography) or on a group of individuals who share a specific characteristic (as in a study of an identifiable group of painters who happen to be all of one sex, colour or religion, or of a religious order which is restricted to one sex).
Article 5.2
Women shall not automatically be excluded from research solely on the basis of sex or reproductive capacity.
Article 5.3
Subject to the provisions in Articles 2.6 to 2.7, those who are not competent to consent for themselves shall not be automatically excluded from research which is potentially beneficial to them as individuals, or to the group that they represent.
