Sociological Practice

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 245–264 | Cite as

Ethics and Institutional Conflict of Interest: The Research Confidentiality Controversy at Simon Fraser University

  • John Lowman
  • Ted Palys
Article

Abstract

This paper describes the lengthy controversy at Simon Fraser University (SFU) over academic freedom and the ethics and law of research confidentiality that began when the Vancouver Coroner subpoenaed criminology graduate student Russel Ogden to testify at an inquest. There were two parts to the controversy. The first concerned the SFU administration's failure to mount a legal defense of Ogden's undertaking to keep “absolutely confidential” the identities of participants in his study of assisted suicide and euthanasia of persons with AIDS. The second concerned the threat to academic freedom created by the administration's subsequent imposition of “limited confidentiality” on researchers according to its “Law of the Land” doctrine of research ethics. We examine these controversies and the institutional conflict of interest underlying them in light of the ethical principles for research with human subjects laid out in various disciplinary ethics codes and, after the fact, by the Tri-Council Policy Statement, the research ethics code created by Canada's three federal research-granting agencies.

ethics confidentiality testimonial privilege administrative conflict of interest 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blomley, N., and S. Davis. 1998. “Russel Ogden Decision Review.” Online: SFU President's Homepage, http://www.sfu.ca/pres/OgdenReview.htm (date accessed: 12 October 1999).Google Scholar
  2. Bond, K. 1978. “Confidentiality and the Protection of Human Subjects in Social Science Research: A Report on Recent Developments.” American Sociologist 13:144–152.Google Scholar
  3. Brajuha, M., and L. Hallowell. 1986. “Legal Intrusion and the Politics of Field Work: The Impact of the Brajuha Case.” Urban Life 14:454–478.Google Scholar
  4. Clayman, B. 1997. “The Law of the Land.” Simon Fraser News, 30 October, p. 5.Google Scholar
  5. Comarow, M. 1993. “Are Sociologists Above the Law?” Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15.Google Scholar
  6. Crabb, B. B. 1996. “Judicially Compelled Disclosure of Researchers' Data: A Judge's View.” Law and Contemporary Problems 59(3), 9–34.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, P. M. 1996. “Science and Subpoenas: When Do the Courts Become Instruments of Manipulation?” Law and Contemporary Problems 59(3), 159–168.Google Scholar
  8. Gagan, D. 1999. “In the Matter of the Appeal of Professor J. Lowman, School of Criminology, and Dr. T. Plays, School of Criminology, Against a Decision of the University Research Ethics Review Committee under Policy R. 20.01 [University Research Ethics].” Mimeo, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  9. Horn, M. 1999. Academic Freedom in Canada:AHistory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jackson, M., and M. MacCrimmon. 1999. “Research Confidentiality and Academic Privilege: A Legal Opinion.” Commissioned by Simon Fraser University (SFU) Research Ethics Policy Revision Task Force. Online: SFU President's Homepage, <http://www.sfu.ca/pres/researchconfidentiality.htm> (date accessed: 14 June 2000).Google Scholar
  11. Lempert, R. O., and S. A. Saltzburg. 1982. A Modern Approach to Evidence: Text, Problems, Transcripts and Cases, 2nd. ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  12. Lowman, J., and T. S. Palys. 1997. “A Law Unto Itself.” Simon Fraser News, November 27, p. 5.Google Scholar
  13. Lowman, J., and T. S. Palys. 1998a. “The History of Limited Confidentiality at SFU.” Online: T. Palys' Homepage, <http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/History.html> (date accessed: 14 June 2000).Google Scholar
  14. Lowman, J., and T. S. Palys. 1998b. “The Liability of Ethics.” Simon Fraser News, July 16, p. 5.Google Scholar
  15. Lowman, J., and T. S. Palys. Forthcoming. “The Ethics and Law of Confidentiality in Sociological Research.”Google Scholar
  16. Mason, B. 1994. “SFU Research on Euthanasia and AIDS Attracts International Media Attention.” Simon Fraser Week, February 17, pp. 1, 3.Google Scholar
  17. McLaughlin, R. H. 1999. “From the Field to the Courthouse: Should Social Science Research be Privileged?” Law and Social Inquiry 24(4):927–966.Google Scholar
  18. Medical Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 1998. The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa: MRC, NSERC, SSHRC.Google Scholar
  19. Nejelski, P., and K. Finsterbusch. 1973. “The Prosecutor and the Researcher: Present and Prospective Variations on the Supreme Court's Branzburg Decision.” Social Problems 21:3–21.Google Scholar
  20. Nelson, R. L., and T. E. Hedrick. 1978. “The Statutory Protection of Confidential Research Data: Synthesis and Evaluation.” Pp. 213–238 in Solutions to Ethical and Legal Problems in Social Research, edited by R. F. Boruch and J. S. Cecil, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ogden, R. 1994. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Persons with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). M.A. Thesis, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  22. Ogden, R. 1997. “An Insult to Free Inquiry.” Simon Fraser News, October 30, p. 5.Google Scholar
  23. Palys, T. S., and J. Lowman. 2000. “Ethical and Legal Strategies for Protecting Confidential Research Information.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society, in press.Google Scholar
  24. Palys, T. S., and J. Lowman. Forthcoming. “Anticipating Law: Research Methods, Ethics and the Common Law of Privilege.” Russel Ogden v. Simon Fraser University. 1998. Burnaby Registry of the British Columbia Provincial Court: Case No. 26780. Online (by permission): T. Palys' Homepage, <http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/steinbrg.htm> (date accessed: 14 June 2000).Google Scholar
  25. Scarce, R. 1994. “(No) Trial (but) Tribulations: When Courts and Ethnography Conflict.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 23(2):123–149.Google Scholar
  26. Sopinka, J., S. N. Lederman, and A. W. Bryant. 1992. The Law of Evidence in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  27. Strathern, M. (Ed.). 2000. Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Traynor, M. 1996. “Countering the Excessive Subpoena for Scholarly Research.” Law and Contemporary Problems 59(3):119–148.Google Scholar
  29. Tudiver, N. 1999. Universities for Sale: Resisting Corporate Control over Canadian Higher Education. Toronto: Lorimer.Google Scholar
  30. University of Exeter. 1999. “Report of the Committee of Academic Enquiry.” Mimeo.Google Scholar
  31. Wiggins, E. C., and J. A. McKenna. 1996. “Researchers' Reactions to Compelled Disclosure of Scientific Information.” Law and Contemporary Problems 59(3):67–94.Google Scholar
  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

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Lowman
    • 1
  • Ted Palys
    • 2
  1. 1.School of CriminologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.School of CriminologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations