Search

This article brings a philosophical perspective to bear on issues of research ethics governance as it is practiced and organized in Canada. Insofar as the processes and procedures that constitute research oversight are meant to ensure the ethical conduct of research, they are based on ideas or beliefs about what ethical research entails and about which processes will ensure the ethical conduct of research. These ideas and beliefs make up an epistemic infrastructure underlying Canada's system of research ethics governance, but, we argue, extensive efforts by community members to fill gaps in that system suggest that these ideas may be deficient. Our aim is to make these deficiencies explicit through critical analysis by briefly introducing the philosophical literature on epistemic injustice and ignorance, and by drawing on this literature and empirical evidence to examine how injustice and ignorance show up across three levels of research ethics governance: research ethics boards, regulations, and training. Following this critique, and drawing on insights from the same philosophical tradition, we highlight the work that communities across Canada have done to rewrite and rework how research ethics as a site of epistemic resistance is practiced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Around the world, a growing number of communities are voicing their demands for authority in the governance of research involving them. Many such communities have experienced histories of exploitative, stigmatizing, intrusive research that failed to benefit them. To better understand what strategies communities are developing in order to have a say in research oversight, we conducted a scoping review of the international peer-reviewed and grey literature. Three primary strategies were identified: (1) guidelines; (2) community review boards; and (3) community advisory boards. Guidelines include documents developed by, with, or for communities to outline ethical behavior or conduct in research with or within the community. Community review boards offer ethical review of research protocols, much like traditional research ethics boards, but are community led and focus on community interests. Community advisory boards consist of representatives from a given community and are developed to advise institutions or research teams on community-level ethical matters pertaining to research projects. Initiatives led by Indigenous communities far outnumbered others in the sample, reflecting the legacy of continuous Indigenous resistance to research as a tool of colonialism. In several cases, communities in marginalized neighbourhoods, where harmful and exploitative research practices have taken place, emphasized the significance of community-led governance grounded in shared geographical and social contexts. We discuss some of the beneficial and challenging features of each type of strategy and offer recommendations for stakeholders who wish to support community-led efforts in research ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines whether solidarity without sovereignty is sufficient for extending the Belmont Principles to non-tribal communities. Topics covered include the initiatives that protect non-tribal communities from research harms and ensure direct benefits, the implications of the initiatives for the argument put forward by B. Saunkeah and colleagues in their article "Extending Research Protections to Tribal Communities," and the North American Opiate Medication Initiative Project.