Minutes of the Research Ethics Board July 28, 2003

Document Sample
Minutes of the Research Ethics Board July 28, 2003 Powered By Docstoc
					                        Minutes of the Research Ethics Board
                                    July 28, 2003
                                 Strand Hall 3171
                                   1:30 – 6:00 p.m.


OPEN SESSION

Present:

Bruce Whittlesea, (Chair) Psychology
Bruce Brandhorst, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
Daniel Cohn, Political Science
Adrienne Drobnies, Faculty of Science
Charles Krieger, Kinesiology
Bill Melville, External Member
David Kaufman, Faculty of Education
Maureen Hoskyn, Faculty of Education
Hal Weinberg, Director, Office of Research Ethics
Janet Yule, Ethics Assistant

Absent:

John Lowman, Criminology
Lynne Kennedy, External Member
Rick Iverson, Business Administration
Joanna Lemay, Student Member
Barb Ralph, Ethics Officer



1. Approval of the Agenda

   Moved and seconded

   “That the Agenda of July 28, 2003 be approved as circulated.

   Carried.


2. Approval of the Draft Minutes of June 16, 2003

   Moved and seconded

   “That the Draft Minutes of June 16, 2003 be approved as circulated.”

   Carried.
Minutes of the Research Ethics Board – Open Session
July 28, 2003
Page 2.



   3. Report from the Chair

      There was no report from the Chair.


   4. Report from Board Members

      There were no reports from the Board members.


   5. DORE Report
        a) Adoption of Library procedure

      The Board discussed Library procedure now being implemented. A letter signed
      by the Director of the Office of Research Ethics, confirming ethics approval of the
      study is requested required when students submit their thesis to the Library.
      Discussion ensued regarding a policy for allowing students who are conducting
      research as a collaborator of their supervisor’s project, to receive a thesis letter
      without making a full ethics application of their own.

      Recommendation: The Departments and Schools are requested to implement a policy that
      requires supervisors to determine if ethics approval is needed at the time the thesis project
      is approved, and that a list of those projects be established for each Department or School
      each semester and sent to the Library and the Office of Research Ethics. Departments
      and Schools be asked to inform students of the necessity of having a Thesis Ethics
      Approval letter included with the submission of their thesis to the Library (Appendix A).

      It was agreed that the DORE should consult with the Dean of Graduate Studies with
      respect to the conditions under which Supervisors are responsible for student research. It
      was also agreed that this question should be forwarded to Judith Osborne for her opinion.

      Moved and seconded

      “Include on the form for scheduling a thesis defense a statement of whether ethics
      approval for human subjects was required, and whether it has been received.”

      Carried.


   6. “Heinous Discovery” – memo from Dr. R. Gordon. The Board discussed the
      issue and its relationship to the consent procedures that includes options A, B
      and C. The Chair of the REB informed the REB that he had responded to the
      letter indicating that the current policy of the REB deals with the issue through
      the options of A, B or C consent procedures. It was agreed the current
      procedures are sufficient to deal with Heinous Discovery.
Minutes of the Research Ethics Board – Open Session
July 28, 2003
Page 3.




      It was agreed to suspend the open meeting for a 15 minute rest period.


      B. Whittlesea, Chairman - re-opened meeting.

      A motion was requested to adjourn the current discussion of issues to deal with
      an on-table item.

      Moved and seconded

      “That the on-table item be considered.”

      Carried.


      The Board discussed the request that the course approval for Publishing 899
      include 898 . The REB noted that Pub 898-899 should have a formal internship
      agreement in place with outside organizations that are utilized in the protocols.


      The REB resumed discussion of issues:

      The Board discussed the issue of how consent is documented when there are no
      written consent procedures. It was agreed that for minimal risk proposals, a
      record of who is interviewed should be kept when consent is verbal, for the
      protection of both the subject and the researcher.

      Moved and seconded

      “That when there is no written consent a record be kept of whom the researcher has
      interviewed.”

      Carried.

      The Board discussed the question of whether it is sufficient to ask researchers to
      insure that they will get consent, in minimal risk studies without consent forms
      being included in the application. The Chair suggested that procedures by
      which informed consent will be acquired must be clearly stated in the protocol.

      The question was discussed as to whether data could be used in ways that were
      different from that identified in the subject information documents and informed
      consent protocols. There was discussion as to how discovery of unexpected
      results could be accommodated and whether destruction of data is required.

      It was agreed to carry forward this question for further discussion.
Minutes of the Research Ethics Board – Open Session
July 28, 2003
Page 4.



      The implication of the current policy is that a student’s Supervisor is a co-
      applicant of student projects was discussed. It was agreed to carry forward this
      question for further discussion.

      The use of deception in experiments was discussed. The question was asked:
      When deception is used in a study is it necessary to inform the student, after the
      data has been collected, for approval to use the data? Is a second consent
      necessary after debriefing?

      The Board noted that deception is an important part of many psychology
      projects. The REB agreed that subjects should be given the opportunity to refuse
      to have data from their participation used after they are debriefed, and the real
      nature and goals of the study is revealed. There was discussion of the possible
      non-reversible impact on subjects of experiments that utilize deception and
      whether in cases where this is possible that deception should not be allowed.

      It was agreed that this is an important question and should be further discussed
      at the next meeting of the REB.

      The Board discussed a request to move next REB meeting to the first or second
      week in September, and noted that the request is consistent with current policy
      requirements for meetings not greater than every 6 weeks.

      The REB agreed that the next meeting be moved to the first or second week in
      September.

      Moved and seconded

      “That the Meeting be adjourned.”

      Carried.

      The Meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm.