Designed to protect the dignity of research subjects, there is limited data on either the effectiveness of Research Ethics Boards or on the scope of the unintended effects of REB processes on core university functions of research, teaching and learning. This article shares results from an online survey on unintended effects, disseminated to postsecondary faculty and students in Social Sciences and Humanities across Canada (n = 620). Key findings include: 78% of respondents report REB processes deter them from undertaking research at all, including minimal risk research, and the prospect of REB review shapes research projects, particularly relating to equity or vulnerable populations. Seventy percent of faculty avoid assigning students research assignments with human subjects because of REB concerns, and 58% have advised graduate students to avoid research with primary data. The authors advocate for robust use of Tri-Council powers to develop feasible reforms to promote research and limit ethics creep.
Gallagher‐Mackay et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: