January 2010
A new draft of the proposed Regulation on the Conduct of Research policy was met
by vocal opposition from student senators at a McGill Senate meeting last
Wednesday.
According to Vice-Principal (Research and International Relations) Denis Therien
the policy is intended to "reinforce, modernize, and clarify" McGill’s standards
for research ethics. However, the newest draft omits two clauses regarding
military research that exist in the current research ethics policy and adds an
anonymity clause for research sponsors acting "legitimately and in good faith" –
changes that some student senators view as a step backward for transparent and
ethical research at McGill.
"This is a blatantly regressive step for McGill to take," said Arts Senator
Sarah Woolf. "We had been working to make this research policy more progressive,
and now it seems that we’ve taken two steps backwards. It’s not just that the
clauses regarding military-funded research have been removed … it’s that
they’ve taken every mention of harmful research out of the entire document."
The first clause regarding military funding removed from the draft required any
"applicants for contracts or grants whose source is a government military agency
[to] indicate on the check list/approval form of the Office of Technology
Transfer or the Research Grants Office whether this research has direct harmful
consequences." The second clause required the VP research to report on research
funded by government military agencies to the Executive Committee of the Board
of Governors, who would have the final authority to approve or disallow such
research.
At Senate, Therien claimed that the military-funding clauses evoked confusion
over whether certain research had "direct harmful consequences," which he views
a matter of opinion.
"This is probably why no university in Canada has explicitly addressed
military funding in their policies," said Therien. "If the research is legal and
passes the various review and ethical boards that are applicable to the research
then it would be very dangerous to try to prevent [research] on ‘flavour of the
day’ criteria. It would be a very slippery slope."
The military-funding clauses were instituted in 1988 after students protested
the development of explosives and other weaponry at McGill. According to the
student group Demilitarize McGill, the university has been involved in
developing lethal weapons since at least the 1960s and some professors have
continued to contribute to weapons research over the past decade.
Rebecca Dooley, the Students’ Society vice-president university affairs,
expressed disappointment with the university’s decision and vowed to fight for
changes to the policy.
"The clauses that were removed do not really regulate military-sponsored
research at McGill – they were more so clauses that promoted transparency," said
Dooley. "And since military research is a divisive issue on which there is no
common consensus, why not have an extra step to promote transparency in that
area of research?"
"I think that if those two clauses had been removed and that similar measures
surrounding research with potentially harmful effects had been included, along
with a clearer review policy for such research, then that would have been a more
understandable and logical step."
The addition of a clause mandating researchers to respect anonymity agreements
between the university and certain research sponsors was also hotly debated at
Senate. In response to criticism from senators, Therien said that the grant
office, under his leadership, would be able to determine whether a research
sponsor was making a legitimate and good faith request for anonymity.
"If the sponsor is trying to hide something then they do not have a legitimate
reason to remain anonymous," said Therien.
When Post Graduate Students’ Society President Daniel Simeone said that he could
not think of a "possible legitimate reason for [a sponsor remaining
anonymous," Therien did not provide an example to refute Simeone’s accusation.
The new research policy was discussed but not approved at Wednesday’s Senate
meeting, and will likely undergo further changes. Woolf said that she would be
"very surprised" if the policy came forward for approval at the next Senate
meeting, citing the "litany" of problems raised by senators during the meeting,
and opposition from the McGill Association of University Teachers and student
senators.
"These moves are about research dollars," Woolf said. "It’s about [McGill]
saying, ‘We need to be as attractive and appealing to potential sponsors and
donors as the other Group of 13 universities.’ … Sure, we’re going through a
period of economic turmoil, but when you’re sacrificing ethics for research
dollars then I think we have a real problem."
The McGill Tribune, November, 10, 2009.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
