Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 265–284 | Cite as

Going Boldly Where No One Has Gone Before? How Confidentiality Risk Aversion is Killing Research on Sensitive Topics

Article

Abstract

Bernhard and Young (Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 175-191, 2009) allege that a “myth of confidentiality” plagues research in North America because of the absence of statute-based legal protections and the requirements of some REBs to limit confidentiality “to the extent permitted by law.” In this commentary we describe statute-based protections for research confidentiality available in the United States, clarify the legal situation regarding research confidentiality in Canada, and explain that REBs that “require” confidentiality to be limited by law are imposing a doctrine that is not required by the TCPS and may violate researchers’ academic freedom. The paper laments how excessive REB risk aversion and inaction by the granting agency Presidents has created a situation where some REBs are encouraging researchers to download research risks to research participants and forcing researchers to choose between exposing themselves to the prospect of going to jail to protect confidentiality, watering down their research objectives, or conducting “vanilla” research rather than engaging in controversial and/or sensitive areas of study. The paper urges the granting agency Presidents to seek legislative change to protect research participants who provide information that could cause them harm if their identity were to be revealed.

Keywords

Confidentiality Statute-based protections Wigmore criteria REB review Confidentiality certificates Ethics and law 

References

  1. Atlantic Sugar, Ltd., v. U.S., 85 Cust. Ct. 128 (1980).Google Scholar
  2. Bernhard, J. K. (2010). Personal communication, 22 March.Google Scholar
  3. Bernhard, J. K., & Young, J. E. E. (2009). Gaining institutional permission: researching precarious legal status in Canada. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blomley, N., & Davis, S. (1998). Russel Ogden Decision Review. Report prepared for the President of Simon Fraser University. Online at http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/ogden.htm
  5. Brajuha, M., & Hallowell, L. (1986). Legal intrusion and the politics of fieldwork: the impact of the Brajuha case. Urban Life, 14(4), 454–478.Google Scholar
  6. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (1998) [with 2000, 2002 and 2005 amendments]. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Online at http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/tcps-eptc/
  7. Caroll, J., & Knerr, C. (1975). Confidentiality and social science research sources and data: The Popkin case. Political Science Quarterly, 6, 268–280.Google Scholar
  8. Cecil, J. S., & Wetherington, G. T. (Eds.) (1996). Court-ordered disclosure of academic research: a clash of values of science and law. Law and Contemporary Problems (Special issue, Vol.59).Google Scholar
  9. Clayman, B. (1997). The law of the land. Simon Fraser News, 10(5), 30 October. Online at http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/sfnews/1997/Oct30/opinion2.html
  10. Driver, J. C. (2007). Memorandum from dean of graduate studies [of Simon Fraser University] to faculty deans, chairs & directors, graduate program chairs and senate graduate studies committee entitled, “Protection of Academic Freedom – Graduate Students, 5 March.”Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, P. M. (1996). Science and subpoenas: when do the courts become instruments of manipulation? Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. In Re: M. A. Cusumano & D. B. Yoffie [United States of America v Microsoft Corporation]. (1997). US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No.98-2133. Online at http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990105/2133.htm
  13. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (2009a). Draft 2nd Edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) (Revised). Online at http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/Revised%20Draft%202nd%20Ed%20PDFs/Revised%20Draft%202nd%20Edition%20TCPS_EN.pdf
  14. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (2009b). Governance structure for the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Online at http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/panel-group/about-apropos/reference/
  15. Jackson, M. J., & MacCrimmon, M. (1999). Research confidentiality and academic privilege: a legal opinion. Report commissioned by the SFU Task Force on Research Ethics. Online at http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/JackMacOpinion.pdf
  16. Jaffee v. Redmond (1996). 518 U.S. 1Google Scholar
  17. Jones, D. J., and Interagency Panel on Research Ethics (2007). Interface of Law and Ethics in Canadian Research Ethics Standards: An Advisory Opinion on Confidentiality, Its limits & Duties to Others. McGill Health Law Publication, 1 1: 101-105 <http://mhlp.mcgill.ca/pdfs/vol1/jones-pre.pdf> Accessed 14 March 2010.
  18. Leo, R. (1995). Trial and tribulations: Courts, ethnography, and the need for an evidentiary privilege for academic researchers. American Sociologist, 26, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lowman, J., & Palys, T. (2000). Ethics and institutional conflict of interest: the research confidentiality controversy at Simon Fraser University. Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology, 2(4), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowman, J., & Palys, T. S. (2001). The ethics and law of confidentiality in criminal justice research: a comparison of Canada and the United States. International Criminal Justice Review, 11(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowman, J., & Palys, T. (2007). Strict confidentiality: an alternative to PRE’s limited confidentiality doctrine. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5(2), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. M. (A.) v. Ryan (1997) 1 S.C.R. 157Google Scholar
  23. Ogden, R. D. (2010). The debreather: a report on euthanasia and suicide assistance using adapted scuba technology. Death Studies, 34, 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palys, T. S., & Lowman, J. (2000). Ethical and legal strategies for protecting confidential research information. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 15(1), 39–80.Google Scholar
  25. Palys, T. S., & Lowman, J. (2002). Anticipating law: research methods, ethics and the common law of privilege. Sociological Methodology, 32, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palys, T., & Lowman, J. (2003). Déjà Vu: Ogden Subpoenaed Again. [An Open Letter dated 28 January, to: Marc Renaud, President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Tom Brzustowski, President, National Science and Engineering Research Council, Alan Bernstein, President, Canadian Institutes for Health Research, appearing on the National Council for Ethics in Human Research (NCEHR) listserv.] Online at http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/NCEHR-DejaVu-OpenLetterToAgencyPresidents.pdf
  27. Palys, T. S., & Lowman, J. (2006). Protecting research confidentiality: towards a research-participant shield law. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 21(1), 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scarce, R. (1994). (No) trial (but) tribulations: when courts and ethnography conflict. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23, 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slavutych v. Baker et al. (1976) 1S.C.R. 254.Google Scholar
  30. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (2004). Giving Voice to the Spectrum: Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee. Report prepared for the federal Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Online at http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/SSHWC-GivingVoice-2004.pdf
  31. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee. (2008). SSHWC Recommendations Regarding Privacy and Confidentiality. Report prepared for the federal Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Online at http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/policy-politique/initiatives/docs/SSHWC_PC_Policy_Recommendations_-_January_2008_-_EN.pdf
  32. Wigmore, J. H. (1905). A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law, including the statutes and judicial decisions of all jurisdictions of the United States, England, and Canada. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CriminologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations