负责任研究行为秘书处:伦理守护者还是基石警察?

J. Lowman
{"title":"负责任研究行为秘书处:伦理守护者还是基石警察?","authors":"J. Lowman","doi":"10.4236/blr.2021.123041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Human research ethics policies invariably hold confidentiality to be a core ethics principle. However, in North America over the past 50 years, numerous third parties—including police, grand juries, Congressional committees, coroners and corporations—have used various lawful mechanisms, such as subpoenas or search warrants, to attempt to gain access to confidential research information. The failure to legislate confidentiality protection for research participants in Canada may reflect the fact that there have been relatively few lawful threats to research confidentiality. However, the legal landscape has changed significantly over the past seven years; from 2012 to 2018, there were six new third-party party attempts to access confidential research information in criminal, civil and coroners’ courts. One of these challenges involved assisted suicide researcher Russel Ogden. In May 2014, the BC Coroner served Ogden, then a Kwantlen faculty member, a summons to interview him under oath concerning the death in 2012 of one of his research participants. Because the Coroner’s examination could potentially compromise Ogden’s promise of research confidentiality, he requested that Kwantlen provide legal support. When Kwantlen declined to provide that support, a third party made a formal complaint to the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct in Research concerning Kwantlen’s conduct. The ensuing article describes the Secretariat response to that complaint. The article suggests that, rather than leaving the defence of research confidentiality in the courtroom to individual research institutions, the Granting Councils should establish a fund to which universities contribute to defend research confidentiality against any lawful challenge.","PeriodicalId":300394,"journal":{"name":"Beijing Law Review","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research: Ethics Guardians or Keystone Cops?\",\"authors\":\"J. Lowman\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/blr.2021.123041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Human research ethics policies invariably hold confidentiality to be a core ethics principle. However, in North America over the past 50 years, numerous third parties—including police, grand juries, Congressional committees, coroners and corporations—have used various lawful mechanisms, such as subpoenas or search warrants, to attempt to gain access to confidential research information. The failure to legislate confidentiality protection for research participants in Canada may reflect the fact that there have been relatively few lawful threats to research confidentiality. However, the legal landscape has changed significantly over the past seven years; from 2012 to 2018, there were six new third-party party attempts to access confidential research information in criminal, civil and coroners’ courts. One of these challenges involved assisted suicide researcher Russel Ogden. In May 2014, the BC Coroner served Ogden, then a Kwantlen faculty member, a summons to interview him under oath concerning the death in 2012 of one of his research participants. Because the Coroner’s examination could potentially compromise Ogden’s promise of research confidentiality, he requested that Kwantlen provide legal support. When Kwantlen declined to provide that support, a third party made a formal complaint to the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct in Research concerning Kwantlen’s conduct. The ensuing article describes the Secretariat response to that complaint. The article suggests that, rather than leaving the defence of research confidentiality in the courtroom to individual research institutions, the Granting Councils should establish a fund to which universities contribute to defend research confidentiality against any lawful challenge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":300394,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Beijing Law Review\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Beijing Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2021.123041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Beijing Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2021.123041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类研究伦理政策始终将保密作为核心伦理原则。然而,在过去的50年里,在北美,许多第三方——包括警察、大陪审团、国会委员会、验尸官和公司——使用各种合法机制,如传票或搜查令,试图获得机密研究信息。加拿大未能立法保护研究参与者的机密性可能反映了这样一个事实,即对研究机密性的合法威胁相对较少。然而,过去七年来,法律环境发生了重大变化;从2012年到2018年,在刑事、民事和验尸法庭上,有6起新的第三方试图获取机密研究信息。其中一项挑战涉及协助自杀研究人员罗素·奥格登。2014年5月,不列颠哥伦比亚省验尸官向时任昆特伦学院教员的奥格登发出传票,要求他就2012年他的一名研究参与者的死亡宣誓采访他。由于验尸官的检查可能会危及奥格登对研究保密的承诺,他要求昆特伦提供法律支持。当Kwantlen拒绝提供这种支持时,第三方就Kwantlen的行为向研究中负责任行为秘书处提出正式投诉。随后的文章叙述了秘书处对该投诉的答复。这篇文章建议,与其在法庭上把保护研究机密的工作留给个别研究机构,资助委员会应该建立一个基金,让大学为保护研究机密免受任何法律挑战作出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research: Ethics Guardians or Keystone Cops?
Human research ethics policies invariably hold confidentiality to be a core ethics principle. However, in North America over the past 50 years, numerous third parties—including police, grand juries, Congressional committees, coroners and corporations—have used various lawful mechanisms, such as subpoenas or search warrants, to attempt to gain access to confidential research information. The failure to legislate confidentiality protection for research participants in Canada may reflect the fact that there have been relatively few lawful threats to research confidentiality. However, the legal landscape has changed significantly over the past seven years; from 2012 to 2018, there were six new third-party party attempts to access confidential research information in criminal, civil and coroners’ courts. One of these challenges involved assisted suicide researcher Russel Ogden. In May 2014, the BC Coroner served Ogden, then a Kwantlen faculty member, a summons to interview him under oath concerning the death in 2012 of one of his research participants. Because the Coroner’s examination could potentially compromise Ogden’s promise of research confidentiality, he requested that Kwantlen provide legal support. When Kwantlen declined to provide that support, a third party made a formal complaint to the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct in Research concerning Kwantlen’s conduct. The ensuing article describes the Secretariat response to that complaint. The article suggests that, rather than leaving the defence of research confidentiality in the courtroom to individual research institutions, the Granting Councils should establish a fund to which universities contribute to defend research confidentiality against any lawful challenge.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信