Office of Research Ethics University of Waterloo

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Human Subjects Protections, Concepts, and Procedures Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Tom Lombardo, Ph.D., Director, Research Integrity & Compliance.
Advertisements

Informed consent requirements
Ethical regulations for health research involving human subjects in Cambodia By Chap Seak Chhay, MD, MPH, MHPEd Public Health and Health Professions Educator.
Conducting Ethical Research Slides Prepared by Alison L. O’Malley Passer Chapter 3.
Human Research and Ethics Dr Michèle de Courcy Chair, Faculty of Education HEAG University of Melbourne.
Human Subjects & Research Understanding the protection of human subjects, HSRC, and the nature of the process.
UH employees and students who conduct research involving human subjects are required to obtain approval from the Committee on Human Studies (CHS). John.
THE ETHICS OF HUMAN PARTICIPANT RESEARCH Office for Research Protections The Pennsylvania State University.
DO NO HARM IRRB Presentation Purposes Responsibilities Processes NLU IRRB Home page.
IRB 101: Informed Consent Columbia University Medical Center IRB September 22, 2005.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم. THE TITLE “INTRODUCTION”
FOUNDATIONS OF NURSING RESEARCH Sixth Edition CHAPTER Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Foundations of Nursing Research,
Research Ethics Western University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 Grace Kelly Ethics Officer
Research Ethics Western University Non-Medical Research Ethics Board Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 Grace Kelly Ethics Officer
Ethics in Research involving Human Subjects Dr. Walid S. Abdelkader Head of Preventive Medicine and Primary Care Division IMC Feb
1 Psychology 2020 Unit 1 cont’d Ethics. 2 Evolution of ethics Historic Studies Tuskegee Syphilis Study ( ) Milgram’s Obedience Study (1960s)
Human Subject Research by Students at William Paterson University May 2011.
Educational Research and the VCOM Institutional Review Board
A History of Human Research Protections and Institutional Review Boards Roger L. Bertholf, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pathology Chair, University of.
Psychology 291 – Lab 4 Ethics October 9, 2012
Human Research Ethics and Obtaining Ethics Approval
Glenn Rivard, Department of Justice 02/XI/22 Research Involving Humans Federal Governance.
15 September Development of Nursing Research.
Protecting Human Participants in Research. Research with Humans 2 Contact Information Susanne Santi Senior Manager, Research Ethics 1027 Needles Hall.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Human Subject Dr. John N. Austin, Director and Ms. Renee S. Jones, Associate Director Delaware State University Office.
The Office of Research Ethics October 11, 2013 Office of Research Ethics.
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD HISTORY AND ETHICS. 2 Ethical History : Holocaust : Nuremburg Trials 1964: Declaration of Helsinki :
May I have your permission please? The consent process: What, Where, When, Who and Why Valerie Smith OHRP IRB Program Manager
University of North Carolina at Greensboro Protecting Research Participants.
Chapter 18 Ethical Precautions in Music Therapy Research.
The Institutional Review Board: A Community College Toolkit Dr. Geri J Anderson.
IRB BASICS: Issues in Ethics and Human Subject Protections Prepared by Ed Merrill Department of Psychology November 12, 2009.
“ Research with human subjects ” SUA IRB Committee OrientationIRB Committee.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) What is our Purpose and Role for Ethical Research.
Human Subjects Protections Research Ethics. Basic Assumptions about How Research Should be Conducted Subjects should be protected from harm. Subjects.
Ethics Ethics Applied to Research. Ethics in Nursing Research Scientific Misconduct – a fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practice that.
The ethical conduct of research with human participants Nancy E. Kass, ScD Department of Health Policy and Management Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of.
Tri-Council Guidelines.  Between 1932 and 1972, 412 men with untreated syphilis compared with 204 disease-free men to study the natural course of the.
Human Subjects Research at ASU An Overview. Overview Definitions Historical Framework Federal Guidelines Human Subjects Research at ASU.
Research Ethics. Ethics From the Greek word, “Ethos” meaning character From the Greek word, “Ethos” meaning character Implies a judgment of character.
Ethics Ethics Applied to Research Back to Class 2.
Lesson 2-4: Respect - Part II Teacher Note: Module 2 Overview Content Area: Hypothesis-Testing: Cross-Sectional Study Essential Questions: How can I select.
Unless otherwise noted, the content of this course material is licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.
TUN IRB: The Basics February 26, IRB Function Review human-subject research Ensure the rights & welfare of human subjects are adequately protected.
What Institutional Researchers Should Know about the IRB Susan Thompson Senior Research Analyst Office of Institutional Research Presented at the Texas.
WELCOME to the TULANE UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION OFFICE WORKSHOP for SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH (March 2, 2010) Tulane University HRPO Uptown.
Protection of Human Research Subjects Theresia Yiallourou Nora Leonardi Ulrike Kettenberger November 19 th 2010.
Conducting Research at Lincoln IRB/HRPP Policies, Procedures & Good Clinical Practices B Kanna MD, MPH, FACP Associate Program Director of Internal Medicine.
M6728 Ethics in Research Informed Consent/IRBs Reporting Research Results.
Chapter 5 Ethical Concerns in Research. Historical Perspective on Ethics Nazi Experimentation in WWII –“medical experiments” –Nuremberg War Crime Trials.
Copyright © 2008 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 7 Generating Research Evidence Ethically.
PRIMER: Human Subjects, Past, Present, and Future Susan Metosky, Arizona State University Debra Murphy, Arizona State University.
Copyright © 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 7 Ethics in Nursing Research.
Principles for the Protection of Human Rights Beneficence Primary goal of health care as doing good for clients under our care. Good care requires that.
Chapter 2: Ethical Issues in Program Evaluation. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) Federal mandate for IRBs –Concern during 1970s about unethical research.
Copyright c 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.1 Chapter 5 Research Ethics All researchers, even students, have a responsibility to conduct ethical research.
INFORMED CONSENT. RESEARCH ETHICS Research Ethics Timeline The Nazi atrocities of World War II: research on Jews in concentration camps led to the creation.
Research ethics.
Informed Consent It’s a Process …not a form. Outline  Historical Background  Respect for Persons  Consent Process  Elements of Informed Consent 
Research Ethics Dr Nichola Seare Aston Health Research & Innovation Cluster.
Chapter 5 Research Ethics
Research Ethics: a short guide for Staff 2017/18
Research Ethics Matthew Billington
The Importance of Ethics and the Protection of Subjects By Westley R
© 2016 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
IRB BASICS: Ethics and Human Subject Protections
ETHICAL ASPECTS OF HEALTH RESEARCH
Ethics Review Morals: Rules that define what is right and wrong Ethics: process of examining moral standards and looking at how we should interpret and.
Human Participants Research
Office of Research Integrity and Protections
Presentation transcript:

Office of Research Ethics University of Waterloo Protecting Human Participants in Research: Living with Evolving Guidelines Office of Research Ethics University of Waterloo

Office of Research Ethics and Grants Contact Information Susan Sykes, Ph.D., C.Psych. Director, Office of Research Ethics and Grants Needles Hall 1026 888-4567 extension 6005 ssykes@uwaterloo.ca

Overview Protecting Human Participants Evolution of Codes of Ethics Canadian and UW Guidelines UW Ethics Review Process ORE Application Process Samples Researcher Safety Responsibility of Researchers

Evolution of Codes of Ethics Prior to World War II, little concern for the treatment of humans in research - no formal protections existed

Evolution of Codes of Ethics Nuremberg Code, 1947 ▪ 10 standards for researchers/physicians ▪ result of an American war crimes tribunal Declaration of Helsinki, 1964 ▪ developed by World Medical Association ▪ individual patient interests before those of society ‘Informed consent and voluntary participation of subjects are essential to all ethical biomedical research’

Evolution of Codes of Ethics Post-Nuremberg Code: abuses and exploitations of humans in research continued; for example ▪ Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932-1972 ▪ Willowbrook School Study, 1957-1963 ▪ Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Study, 1963 ▪ Milgram Obedience Study, early 1960s ▪ Tearoom Trade Study, mid 1960s

Tuskegee Syphilis Study 600 low-income African-American males recruited: 399 infected with syphilis Participants given free medical exams and meals, and burial insurance, but not told about disease Physicians told participants being treated for “bad blood’ Physicians deliberately denied men treatment for syphilis, and prevented treatment from other sources

Milgram Obedience Study Recruited participants for learning and memory study; really studying obedience and disobedience to authority; interest stemmed from Nuremberg Trials Naïve participants believed they were applying escalating electric shock to a “learner” for incorrect answers “learner” was confederate and not shocked Study criticized for extreme psychological stress

Tearoom Trade Study Laud Humphreys conducted a sociology PhD study; it involved a study of homosexual encounters in public washrooms and determining personal characteristics of the men Befriended men by acting as “lookout” Recorded their licence-plate numbers A police officer traced licence #s to provide identifying information Humphreys, altered appearance, contacted the men, and interviewed them in their home for a study concerning health issues Study criticized for using deception upon deception and the lack of informed consent

Bad Blood Richard Ward, head of Institute of Biological Anthropology, University of Oxford studied the Nuu-chah-nulth Indians of Vancouver Island 2/3 of Nuu-chah-nulth Indians have arthritis In 1985, collected 833 vials of blood; subjects signed consent form for screening for arthritis biomarkers Ward did not find the gene he was looking for; used samples in study identifying the people as a distinct indigenous pop. dating back nearly 70,000 years Nuu-chah-nulth claim Ward should have given samples back after arthritis study; Ward has provided some of the blood for other genetic studies

Evolution of Codes of Research Ethics Belmont Report U.S. 1979: Three Basic Ethical Principals Respect for Persons ▪ Individuals treated as autonomous agents ▪ Protection of individuals with reduced autonomy Beneficence ▪ Respect persons’ decision, protect from harm ▪ Maximize benefits and minimize harms Justice ▪ Benefits and risks of research must be distributed fairly

Canadian Guidelines MRC Guidelines - 1978, 1987 SSHRC Guidelines - 1981 Tri-Council Code of Conduct - 1994-1996 (draft) Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS): Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans - 1998 Tri-Agency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics- 2001-2006

Canadian Guidelines TCPS– Guiding Principles Respect for human dignity Respect for free and informed consent Respect for vulnerable persons Respect for privacy and confidentiality Respect for justice and inclusiveness Balancing harms and benefits Minimizing harm Maximizing benefits

UW Accountability: Research with Humans Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans University of Waterloo Guidelines for Research with Human Participants Memorandum of Understanding between Federal Granting Agencies and Institutions

UW Ethics Review Process What Research Requires Ethics Review? All research that involves….. data collected from humans

UW Ethics Review Process Office of Research Ethics Infrastructure Established as Office of Human Research -1971 Mandates evolved and expanded during 1990s to present Office of Research Ethics ▪ Director, Research Ethics ▪ Manager, Research Ethics ▪ Research Ethics Coordinator ▪ Animal Research Coordinator

UW Ethics Review Process Two Ethics Review Routes: ORE: Ethics review by Director or Manager, Office of Research Ethics HREC: Ethics review by all members of Human Research Ethics Committee (or sub-committee)

UW Ethics Review Process How is Ethics Review Route Determined? Most commonly, on the basis of identified level of risks to participants ▪ Applications that pose no more than minimal risk to participants are reviewed by Director or Manager ▪ Applications that pose greater than minimal risk to participants are referred to the HREC

UW Ethics Review Process What is Minimal Risk? ….Participants reasonably expect to participate in research activities in which the potential risk of harm is no greater than that which they already experience in their everyday lives.

UW Ethics Review Process Primary Considerations of Ethics Review Process: Recruitment procedures Anonymity of participants and confidentiality of data Risks vs. benefits of procedures Informed consent process

Recruitment Procedures Variety of routes: telephone, email, paper, radio, poster, flyer Recruitment materials undergo ethics review Script for telephone recruitment necessary For minors, recruitment begins with parents Standard ethics review and clearance statement included in all recruitment materials Sample recruitment scripts on ORE website

Recruitment Script Hello, my name is (insert name) and I am a 2nd year student conducting a course project under the supervision of Dr. (name) of Environmental and Resources Studies. I am studying how... This research will hopefully… If you volunteer as a participant in this study, you will be asked to… The session should take approximately (X minutes) of your time. I would like to assure you that this study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through the Office of Research Ethics. If you are interested in participating, please fill out one of the individual confidential recruitment cards* and I will be in touch with you.  Alternatively, you can come to (insert location) and see me.  Thank you.

Anonymity and Confidentiality Anonymity gives best protection for confidentiality of data Access to data only by research team Data are kept secure from theft, interception, copying or perusal Personal identifiers removed from questionnaires, tapes, other documents No names/identifiers released without written consent

Anonymity and Confidentiality For some types of research, attribution is preferred over anonymity, by both researcher and participants Participant gives consent for attribution or anonymity of information provided Participant has opportunity to review transcript, or relevant text of report

Risks vs. Benefits of Procedures Potential benefits of research must outweigh any potential risks Researcher must determine both known and potential risks of procedures Risks of procedures can be physical, psychological, legal, economic and social Details on risks and benefits are included in information-consent letter and ORE application; must agree

Informed Consent Process Informed consent is Not a single event in time and is not just a form to be signed An educational process Informed consent includes Full disclosure of researcher’s and participant’s role Adequate comprehension for person to voluntarily decide to participate

Informed Consent Process Elements of an Information Consent Letter Names of the Faculty Supervisor and Student Investigator conducting the project along with departmental affiliation and contact numbers   The study purpose Description in lay language of all procedures:  For questionnaires or interviews, examples of the type of questions are to be included For studies involving questionnaires or interviews, a statement indicating participants may decline answering any question(s) Description of all known or anticipated risks and benefits Details of time commitment required for participation in the project

Informed Consent Process Elements of an Information Consent Letter cont’d Assurance participants free not to participate, or t to subsequently withdraw their consent, without jeopardizing any entitlements      Details about follow-up sessions or subsequent related project   Procedures to ensure confidentiality of data and anonymity of participants -- any limitations on confidentiality should be noted      Details concerning financial or other remuneration of participants     Information on length of retention and security of data   

Informed Consent Process Elements of an Information Consent Letter cont’d Opportunity to ask any related questions and receive answers to their satisfaction A statement that indicates that the project has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through the Office of Research Ethics (ORE), and that participants who have comments or concerns resulting from their involvement in the project may contact the Director, ORE. The telephone number for the ORE (519-888-4567, Ext. 6005) must be provided.

Informed Consent Process Provision for obtaining written informed consent is normally made in human research Exceptions to Written Consent Anonymous survey research Research with individuals from particular cultures

ORE Application Process Form Description   All Forms Copyright © 2000-03 University of Waterloo Word W Online Form 101 - Application for Ethics Review of Research with Human Participants. Form 101A - Application for Ethics Review of Research with Human Participants, for non-thesis course projects. *ORE 101A is done through the  Form 101 online application. Note: **Form 101 and Form 101A must be completed ON-LINE. TWO signed, paper copies with attachments also must be submitted to the ORE, NH 1024** For assistance, see Guide to Application Form, Standard Operating Procedures, and sections Ethics Review and Informed Consent and Samples. 101 101A Must Be Done Form 105 - Annual Progress Report See description of Annual progress report.

Samples Sample recruitment materials, information letters, consent forms, and feedback letters http://www.research.uwaterloo.ca/ethics/human/ informed_consent.asp Copy and modify sample materials for your project

Researcher Safety May be risks to researcher while conducting a study; these may translate into risks to participants Review methods of collecting data from the perspective of what could pose possible risks to the researcher Door-to-door surveys or data collection in semi-secluded areas; consider ▪ Work in pairs ▪ Check in and out ▪ Carry a cell-phone

Researchers’ Responsibilities Researchers expected to design and implement research consistent with TCPS and with UW’s Guidelines Researchers ensure all their research involving humans undergoes ethics review and receives ethics clearance prior to commencement of the project Researchers conduct research in accordance with their description in the application for which ethics clearance has been granted

Researchers’ Responsibilities Researchers submit all subsequent modifications to the protocol for ethics review and clearance before changes are undertaken (ORE 104) Researchers responsible for submitting an annual Progress Report for all ongoing research projects (ORE 105) Researchers submit an adverse event form for any events related to the procedures used that adversely affect participants (ORE 106)