Tri-Agency Statement on Ethical Conduct

Tri-Agency Statement on Ethical Conduct
Name	Tri-Agency Statement on Ethical Conduct
Author	Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Country	Canada
Language	English language
Subject	Research integrity; research ethics
Pub date	2016

Tri-Agency Statement on Ethical Conduct. The Tri-Agency Statement on Ethical Conduct is a policy framework issued by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to articulate standards for ethical behaviour in research supported by these agencies. It sets out principles, obligations, and procedures intended to align practices at institutions such as the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia, the McGill University, and the University of Alberta with expectations from funders including federal bodies and provincial agencies. The Statement interfaces with legislation and guidance from entities like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Tri-Council Policy Statement, and frameworks used by international bodies such as the World Health Organization and the European Commission.

Background and Purpose

The Statement was developed amid debates involving stakeholders including university administrators from Queen's University, research ethics boards influenced by the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and policy units in Ottawa. It aimed to clarify obligations after cases involving prohibited practices that attracted scrutiny from bodies like the Royal Society and prompted reviews similar to inquiries such as the Nuremberg trials-era ethics reforms and later governance responses modeled on Office of Research Integrity (United States) procedures. The purpose includes promoting integrity comparable to standards advocated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and reinforcing links with professional standards of organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Psychological Association.

Scope and Principles

The Statement applies to researchers at institutions including the University of Calgary, Dalhousie University, Université de Montréal, and research institutes like the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics when their work is supported by the tri-agencies. Core principles evoke conduct endorsed by bodies such as the Institute of Medicine and emphasize responsibilities akin to those in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Principles address honesty, accountability, transparency, fairness, and stewardship, reflecting norms described by the Royal Society (United Kingdom), the National Academy of Sciences, and the Council of Canadian Academies.

Compliance and Responsibilities

Compliance expectations place roles on individuals including principal investigators at institutions like the University of Waterloo and laboratory managers at hospitals affiliated with the Montreal Heart Institute. Responsibilities are assigned to research teams, administrators at entities such as the Canadian Space Agency-partnered labs, and institutional officers comparable to research integrity officers at Oxford University or the University of Cambridge. Procedures reference potential sanctions used by bodies like the NSERC and echo processes from regulatory regimes exemplified by the Health Research Authority (United Kingdom) and the National Institutes of Health.

Procedures for Reporting and Investigations

The Statement prescribes reporting routes through institutional channels including research integrity offices modelled after mechanisms at the University of British Columbia and investigation procedures comparable to those used by the Wellcome Trust and the European Research Council. It outlines protections similar to those in whistleblower frameworks such as the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and investigation timelines influenced by standards from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and arbitration practices seen in cases before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Training and Promotion of Ethical Research

Training obligations invoke curricula and resources analogous to programs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Stanford University, and national initiatives supported by organizations such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Promotion of ethical research includes mentorship expectations similar to those in faculty development at Yale University and professional development models from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Royal Society of Canada.

Institutional and Funding Agency Roles

Institutions such as Simon Fraser University and funding agencies including the tri-agencies are assigned complementary roles, mirroring relationships seen between the National Science Foundation and U.S. universities, or between the European Commission and member-state research institutes. Duties include oversight, adjudication, and funding consequences analogous to actions taken by the Wellcome Trust or the Gates Foundation in misconduct cases; they also coordinate with regulatory frameworks like those administered by provincial bodies and national tribunals such as the Federal Court of Canada when disputes escalate.

Impact and Criticism

The Statement has influenced institutional policies at universities including McMaster University and inspired debate in forums such as conferences hosted by the Canadian Association of Research Administrators and reports from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Critics compare it to international norms set by the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and argue—drawing on analyses from scholars at Oxford and Cambridge—that enforcement mechanisms may lack the independence or resourcing found in structures like the Office of Research Integrity (United States) or the European Research Executive Agency, raising questions similar to critiques leveled at the Research Councils UK and other major funders.

Category:Research ethics