Christopher Leo

My colleague Pauline Greenhill asked me to post this comment on her behalf:

Hi Chris,

This is probably not of interest to anybody outside the U of W, but there are a couple of things. First, the tri-council policy actually says people can withdraw from research at any time. That potentially means that somebody I interviewed 20 years ago could say "I now withdraw" and I (I myself me) would be in contravention of the ethical guidelines. Locally we changed that to "any time up to publication or presentation" because obviously the latter situation is ridiculous. Secondly, locally here at U of W, interviews with politicians, etc., those who are expected to be seeking publicity, and those who are publicly accountable, must follow much less stringent guidelines (research type A on the checklist), and as usual the guideline of your professional or academic association. So you've overstated the problem and your first hypothetical probably wouldn't happen.

As for the problem of protecting the relatively less powerful, as the ethics guidelines state, the right to withdraw is one of several guidelines that offer a minimum level of protection only. If you are working with folks who are truly vulnerable, then you need to ensure that extra protections are in place, that you anticipate and warn people about consequences etc. And finally, of course, the ethical guidelines are not legal protection for the people involved. Their legal protection is in place in any case.

Best, Pauline

Hello Pauline,

Thanks for your comments. It's an important issue. We need to talk about it a lot more.

To get the specifics of the University of Winnipeg's application form out of the way first, the checklist that refers to a respondent's right to withdraw anytime before publication must be filled out by applicants for both Type A and Type B research. It would appear therefore that cabinet ministers and mayors get the same protection that vulnerable children (rightly) have.

As for the protection of subordinates and other vulnerable people: If, as you say, researchers need to put extra protections in place beyond those called for in the ethics guidelines, I'd have to ask what, then, is the purpose of the guidelines?

Collegial regards,

Chris.

I got another message from Pauline Greenhill, and I'm happy to post it on her behalf. She wrote:

Again, I guess you'll have to post this.

On the first item ("the politicians get the same protection as the vulnerable folks") you're simply wrong. I'm cutting and pasting the A guidelines. If you see the item giving them the OK to withdraw material, please tell me which one it is.:

A1. Will all professional standards that are accepted generally in the investigator’s discipline be applied in the conduct of this research/scholarship? Yes No
Note: Reference to such professional standards as are relevant to ethical conduct should be made in the project description, or in an attached note.

A2. Will potential subjects/participants be informed fully about likely venues for public presentation of interview contents and/or private materials?
Yes No

A3. Will third parties be informed fully about the extent to which their identities will be revealed publicly?
Yes No

A4. Will free and informed consent procedures be used?
Yes No

A5. Does the study involve temporarily leading the subject/participant to believe that the study has some purpose other than the actual one?
Yes No

A6. Will the subject’s/participant’s written or oral consent to participate be obtained?
Yes No

A7. Will any promises be made to the subjects/participants that the investigator later might have difficulty fulfilling?
Yes No

Answer Questions A8 and A9 as applicable, or indicate N/A

A8. If private materials under the control of the subject/participant will be made public as a consequence of the research/scholarship, will due care be taken to obtain the subject’s/participant’s written consent, and otherwise to avoid infringing on the subject’s/participant/s rights?
Yes No N/A

A9. If the possibility of commercialization of private materials exists, will the subject/participant who has control of these materials be so informed?
Yes No N/A

As for your second issue, about what's the purpose of the checklist, you should know very well that the checklist that is filled out by folks from the U of Winnipeg and all the information that goes with it is a package. Any single item (like the one you find so dreadfully problematic) comes with a series of others that work together to guide people to think about what might be the ethical issues involved. They're not a series of yes no questions--answer one way you're ethical, answer another, you're not. As you very well know, the B ethics materials (NOT for the politicians and artists and so forth) has 60 questions, and comes with a huge amount of additional information. The checklist is intended to guide the researcher's response. Scrutiny by the ethics committee depends on the risk level (minimal or higher). Where there is greater risk, then there is greater scrutiny by the committee, and I'm sure you would agree that any ethical academic would expect that they should be putting in greater safeguards for more vulnerable people and more ethically, legally, etc. risky situations. Further, the checklist clearly indicates that it does not cover all the potential ethical issues. The researcher is supposed to know her/his stuff and deal with it accordingly.

P.

Pauline:

Once again, thanks for your open and forthright response to my comments. The issue is very important - well worth the effort.

Since I'd much rather have a sensible code of ethics than prove anyone wrong, I'm pleased to accept your assurance - if I read your comment correctly - that, in future, I will have the support of the Senate Ethics Committee if I resist pressure to withdraw evidence from publication because it offends a government official. In order to demonstrate that this is the official position of the UW's Senate Ethics Committee, I recommend that the committee amend the checklist which comes near the end of the application form. As it stands now, it can reasonably be read to mean the opposite of what you're saying.

As for the fact that the ethics guidelines do not protect people in subordinate positions from reprisals, I accept both your acknowledgement of that fact and your contention that ethical issues are too complex and situational to be fully covered by any set of rules. That complexity has turned the ethics guidelines into a set of rules that shift constantly to accommodate various objections. The result is that it is easy to pick out provisions that can reasonably be interpreted to contradict each other (for example, the Section A guidelines you cite in your comment and the checklist at the end of the application).

My personal view is that we need to re-think ethics guidelines from the ground up, to abandon the current effort to prescribe large numbers individual rules of behaviour and substitute a broad code of ethics, together with sanctions for violators, sanctions with teeth.

Collegial regards,

Chris.