The Tri-Council Policy Statement: A Chronicle
[last updated 13 June 2003 ]
A significant development in the areas of ethics and sociology of science has been occasioned by the three major granting councils (SSHRC: The Social Science and Humanities Research Council; NSERC: The National Sciences and Engineering Research Council; and CIHR: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, formerly MRC: The Medical Research Council) attempting to put together a mega-code of ethics that would govern all research involving human participants done in Canada, and by Canadians outside of Canada. The process began in 1994, with successive drafts generated by the Tri-Council Working Group on Ethics in 1996 and 1997. The Canadian research community responded critically regarding the granting councils' unilateral imposition of such a code, objecting particularly to the commandeering tone of the 1996 draft. For example, see
Significant revisions to the Code were made through several iterations, and the idea of a "code" was abandoned in favour of a "policy statement," released on 17 September 1998. See the final (1998) draft of the Tri-Councils' Policy Statement, entitled Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, at:
Whatever its name, the "policy statement" serves the regulatory function of an ethics code; all institutions in Canada that receive any funding from any of the granting councils and would like to continue doing so are required to adhere to the principles and processes it articulates. The final policy is a thoughtful document that indicates (a) that the Tri-Councils were determined to centralize ethics authority and the right of approval of every research project in the country that involved human participants; and (b) that they heeded the Canadian research community and its criticisms.
Ethics Governance
Creating the TCPS was one thing, but implementing it another. Ethical principles become artifacts in the sociology of science. In Research Decisions it is described as one of one of the most significant events in decades for Canada's research community. The first notable impact was the immediate bourgeoning of an ethics bureaucracy throughout Canada's research infrastructure. A governance structure put the three granting councils at the top of the organizational chart as those responsible for "stewardship" of the TCPS. They lead, are advised by, and are reported to, by the newly created Secretariat on Research Ethics in government, and an independent panel of institutional representatives, researchers and community members called the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (the PRE).
For parts of Canada's research enterprise -- those for whom the TCPS was primarily constructed and who were best represented in its creation have fared well with the TCPS, particularly those who take part in the "business" of academe -- the TCPS has been helpful. For other parts -- particularly segments of academe devoted to more qualitative and collaborative forms of inquiry, extending also to the humanities and parts of fine arts -- the impact of the TCPS has been more problematic. Bringing together extant critique and adding anew is a 2001 presentation by John Mueller of the University of Calgary. Entitled Research Ethics Boards: A Waste of Time?, it exemplifies some of the more probing questions being asked about the TCPS's impact on academe, and the social sciences in particular.
Consultation Regarding Future Development of the TCPS
From its inception, the TCPS has been described as a document that would be "evolving." By 2003, with an ethics infrastructure in place, and growing criticism regarding the impact of the TCPS on the social sciences and humanities, it was time to evolve. Two committees were formed by the PRE: (1) a subgroup considering definitional issues and procedural clarifications (ProGroup); and (2) the Social Science and Humanities Special Working Committee on Research Ethics (SSHWC), who are charged with advising the PRE on priorities for TCPS development in relation to the social science and humanities research communities. Both have now been created and are now in the process of creating reports on the basis of consultations with Canada's research community. I have been appointed to the SSHWC. Any submissions regarding the committees can be submitted through the PRE, or you can contact me, and it will be brought to the committee's attention.