Schedule

Make Sure to Double Check the Schedule before your session. There are links to pdf agendas near the bottom of this page. You can also see any changes made in our News Section.
Check Out the News

Click on the Session Titles to see session information

Expand All +
  • Tuesday, April 30


  • Wednesday, May 1


  • Thursday, May 2


  • 30 avril Mardi


  • 1 mai Mecredi


  • 2 mai Jeudi


  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Multi-Jurisdictional Research, Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Reaching for Tools: Gaps in Awareness of Research Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research in Art and Design Scholarship” is a Conference Showcase Hall presentation that asks how standards for responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics (RE) are understood and implemented in art and design scholarship. It offers a summary of issues including: What is the status of RE and RCR practices and procedures in art, design, and interdisciplinary contexts? What needs to be developed? What are research priorities in this field? It describes how the research offices of Emily Carr University of Art and Design (ECU) and OCAD University (OCADU) jointly developed a program of presentations and workshops called "Conducting Creative Research (CCR)” to address these gaps (2021-2023). Emerging from perceptions of inadequate and unclearly articulated approaches to the application of RCR principles in art and design settings, the broad focus of the events was RCR training, including data management standards, Indigenous research ethics and protocols for creative methods, privacy standards, ethics in international settings, and authorship issues. “Conducting Creative Research” was made possible with a SRCR Education and Training Support (SETS) Grant from the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research through the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) and the Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) on behalf of the Tri-Agencies.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: First Nations; Inuit; Métis; Chapter 9; TCPS; RCR Framework; Indigenous

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    On behalf of the three federal research funding Agencies, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) plans to update the guidance in TCPS 2 and the RCR Framework on research involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, communities and territories. This showcase item will describe the process that has been carried out to date and pose questions to CAREB members on their experiences in conducting or reviewing this type of research.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Artificial Intelligence, Digital Technology, Machine Learning, Health Regulation

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    The role of data and analytics has never been more important in society and, in particular, for health applications. There has been a rapid change in the nature of data used in health research and an increased focus on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the analysis of those emerging data sources. There are many conflicting points of view on the utility of AI in a health context and a lack of clarity on the implications for the health systems more generally. This talk will cover the myths, the debates, and the skepticism (from all sides) and outline a proposed direction for the role of AI in the future of health. We will additionally cover the intersection of AI with a precision public health frame and the potential impact and unintended consequences of this framing. The talk will include implications related to bias, health equity, surveillance and causal inference. The talk will conclude by summarizing the implications for epidemiology research and training across ethics and health domains.
    Keynote
    Keynote Q&A

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Research Ethics

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    It is widely recognized that systemic barriers limit the participation of women and marginalized groups in research enterprise in Canada, with lower rates of academic appointment, secured funding, pay, mentorship, and training opportunities. NSERC acknowledges that incorporating EDI in research promotes excellence, relevance to society as a whole, and fuels innovation. It protects communities and promotes equitable distribution of benefits. It benefits communities impacted by research, including those historically harmed by research, and fosters belonging and inclusion for participants. Generally speaking, a lack of confidence in addressing EDI challenges coupled with a lack of relevant learning and resources has acted as a barrier for REBs to provide relevant and appropriate EDI-related feedback. The presenters partnered with Viswali Consulting in 2023 to develop and deliver an open webinar series and workbooks to support Ontario colleges in building an understanding and appreciation for the relationship between EDI and REB principles and practices. This session will share learnings and tools from the webinar series to help participants embed EDI considerations in REB feedback at their respective institutions. Presenters will facilitate a discussion on gaps and needs to inform the development of future EDI-related tools, resources, professional development opportunities, and advocacy efforts for research stakeholders. Participants will also be invited to share their EDI-promoting tips, practices, and experiences.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Research Security Data Ownership, Management and Governance

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    In 2021, Canada’s three federal funding agencies released a policy on research data management, including a mandate that grant recipients are “required to deposit into a digital repository all digital research data, metadata and code” that support their research outputs. This is not a requirement for open sharing, but most academic and journal data repositories are designed with open sharing as a default, and the wording strongly encourages sharing where ethical and other requirements allow. But when can data on human participants be shared safely? Many researchers promise research participants that they will only share data that has been anonymized, or even say that the data they collect is anonymous because no identifiers are collected. But when is this true? How can a researcher, a research ethics officer, or a data curator tell when data may pose a risk to confidentiality? Survey data often contains hidden indirect identifiers that could be exploited by a skilled attacker to determine a participants’ identity – anything from a date to a distance to a selected interview language could, in the wrong context or combination, pose risk. In this workshop I will introduce some of the theory that explains why data anonymization is so difficult, discuss techniques for assessing the risk in a dataset, and share some of the data anonymization issues I have encountered as both a data curator and a REB member.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: TCPS2, Broad Consent

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Since the launch of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS (2022) in January 2023, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (Secretariat) has received several requests to clarify the Policy’s new guidance on broad consent. These requests have resulted in the publication of a set of new public interpretations on the topic In addition, in May 2023, SRCR and PRE published guidance on the requirement for REB review of research using social media platforms (presented during last year’s CAREB conference). A complementary set of guidance on the use of crowdsourcing platforms for recruitment in research is in development. In this session, the Secretariat will address the most frequently asked questions about the new public interpretations on broad consent and present the new guidance document on the use of crowdsourcing platforms.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Recruitment, Digital platforms, Covert, Research Ethics Board Collaboration, Ethics review

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This case study will outline how researchers and the REB worked collaboratively to apply TCPS 2 principles to access a hard-to-reach study population. A doctoral student and their supervising faculty investigator aimed to investigate the gig work model in the healthcare industry by interviewing personal support workers (PSWs) and health care aids. Little is known about the gig care work model in Canada. As the researchers experienced several challenges in recruiting study participants, an alternative recruitment strategy was proposed. This involved posing online under fictitious pretenses, as a person looking to hire a health care worker on several digital platforms. The proposed recruitment methodology was a novel method to both the research team and the REB. Ethical concerns were identified as well as legal concerns with respect to the platforms’ statements of use. The researchers will discuss how they used the TCPS 2 principles to design the covert recruitment methodology. Staff from the Office of Research Ethics will discuss how the REB members approached the ethical review of the proposed study. REBs and the staff who support them will learn how the researchers and REB members approached the ethical dilemmas they faced around covert recruitment methods.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Artificial intelligence, Ethical AI, Transparency, Privacy

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as a research tool has significant implications for research ethics boards. Some institutions may transfer broad AI review responsibilities on to REBs, while other REBs may consider AI tools only within specific proposals for research involving human participants. Both scenarios will present challenging questions requiring REB members to apply core understandings of how AI works and how to apply principles of ethical AI in the field of the research project. Facilitated by some of Canada’s leading experts in AI ethics, this workshop will provide participants with a solid grounding in the nature of AI tools and advances in AI ethics as well as examples of AI ethics challenges to date. Participants will then leverage this information in smaller-group discussions on how AI principles can apply to REB assessments in specific research disciplines (e.g. medicine, social science, etc.). Topics of discussion will include: choosing amongst the various existing ethical AI frameworks (e.g. the Montreal Declaration in Canada, the Berkman-Klein Principled AI Framework in the USA, and the Digital Catapult Ethical Framework in the UK), reconciling inconsistencies between different frameworks, addressing the underlying tension between individual ethical principles (e.g. participant privacy versus data transparency), and how AI-specific guidance is situated within the broader landscape of research ethics and existing regulatory frameworks.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Consent, Inclusive Research, Cognitive disabilities, Ethics Review, Research processes and methods

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This two-part educational workshop aims to interrogate the balance between social justice advancements and human research protection. The main goal is to provide practical tools to ethics review board members and administrators to better understand and help researchers remove barriers to inclusive research with persons with cognitive disabilities. Persons with cognitive disabilities include persons living with dementia, intellectual or developmental disabilities and anyone self-identifying as being neurodivergent. The learning objectives of the workshop are: Part 1: Workshop attendees will learn best practices in inclusive research methods with persons with cognitive disabilities. This will include information on how to intentionally and meaningfully include persons with cognitive disabilities in academic research, and how to make research processes and methods more accessible to them. Hand-on exercises will support learning. Part 2: Workshop attendees will learn how informed consent is conceptualized and practical tools that researchers may use to satisfy informed consent requirements. Resources and strategies for ethics board review members to support decision-making in ethics applications involving participants with cognitive disabilities will be offered. Principles from the tri-council ethical conduct guidelines will be discussed with an ethics board director in the context of research involving participants with cognitive disabilities.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Multi-jurisdictional Research, Military, Social Science Research, Canadian Armed Forces

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    The Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) Social Science Research Review Board (SSRRB) is mandated by Defence policy (Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5061 and 5062) to review social science research with members of the Defence Team (e.g., actively serving CAF members of the Regular Forces or Primary Reserves, DND public servants, cadets, applicants and prospects) from an ethical, methodological, and technical/contextual perspective. The SSRRB ensures that the research adheres to the TCPS 2 and respects the rights of Defence Team personnel, that the research is conducted in accordance with accepted professional practices, and that it considers and incorporates organizationally and contextually appropriate factors that are unique to the CAF including considering the vulnerability of CAF members, and demonstrates appropriate organizational support from internal sponsors and commands for the research to occur. This applies to internally generated social science research, as well as to research proposed by external-to-defence researchers, including academic research. As such, the SSRRB regularly deals with multijurisdictional research when academic researchers propose research with Defence Team members. The SSRRB has been adapting its approach to multijurisdictional review to facilitate research with Defence Team personnel. The SSRRB has adopted several approaches to navigate reviews of multijurisdictional research and will be continuing to work with academic REBs to adapt its processes accordingly. The SSRRB’s experience with multijurisdictional research reviews and working with researchers from various institutions, may benefit members of the ethics community and provide an opportunity to obtain feedback and suggestions on best practices to apply the review models, where the SSRRB is accountable for research within the CAF/DND, and has the familiarity and expertise for working with the Defence Team, including characteristics unique to the military that may not be familiar to, or considered by academic REBs.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Artificial intelligence, Ethical AI, Transparency, Privacy

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as a research tool has significant implications for research ethics boards. Some institutions may transfer broad AI review responsibilities on to REBs, while other REBs may consider AI tools only within specific proposals for research involving human participants. Both scenarios will present challenging questions requiring REB members to apply core understandings of how AI works and how to apply principles of ethical AI in the field of the research project. Facilitated by some of Canada’s leading experts in AI ethics, this workshop will provide participants with a solid grounding in the nature of AI tools and advances in AI ethics as well as examples of AI ethics challenges to date. Participants will then leverage this information in smaller-group discussions on how AI principles can apply to REB assessments in specific research disciplines (e.g. medicine, social science, etc.). Topics of discussion will include: choosing amongst the various existing ethical AI frameworks (e.g. the Montreal Declaration in Canada, the Berkman-Klein Principled AI Framework in the USA, and the Digital Catapult Ethical Framework in the UK), reconciling inconsistencies between different frameworks, addressing the underlying tension between individual ethical principles (e.g. participant privacy versus data transparency), and how AI-specific guidance is situated within the broader landscape of research ethics and existing regulatory frameworks.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Consent, Inclusive Research, Cognitive disabilities, Ethics Review, Research processes and methods

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This two-part educational workshop aims to interrogate the balance between social justice advancements and human research protection. The main goal is to provide practical tools to ethics review board members and administrators to better understand and help researchers remove barriers to inclusive research with persons with cognitive disabilities. Persons with cognitive disabilities include persons living with dementia, intellectual or developmental disabilities and anyone self-identifying as being neurodivergent. The learning objectives of the workshop are: Part 1: Workshop attendees will learn best practices in inclusive research methods with persons with cognitive disabilities. This will include information on how to intentionally and meaningfully include persons with cognitive disabilities in academic research, and how to make research processes and methods more accessible to them. Hand-on exercises will support learning. Part 2: Workshop attendees will learn how informed consent is conceptualized and practical tools that researchers may use to satisfy informed consent requirements. Resources and strategies for ethics board review members to support decision-making in ethics applications involving participants with cognitive disabilities will be offered. Principles from the tri-council ethical conduct guidelines will be discussed with an ethics board director in the context of research involving participants with cognitive disabilities.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Multi-Jurisdictional Research, Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Reaching for Tools: Gaps in Awareness of Research Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research in Art and Design Scholarship” is a Conference Showcase Hall presentation that asks how standards for responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics (RE) are understood and implemented in art and design scholarship. It offers a summary of issues including: What is the status of RE and RCR practices and procedures in art, design, and interdisciplinary contexts? What needs to be developed? What are research priorities in this field? It describes how the research offices of Emily Carr University of Art and Design (ECU) and OCAD University (OCADU) jointly developed a program of presentations and workshops called "Conducting Creative Research (CCR)” to address these gaps (2021-2023). Emerging from perceptions of inadequate and unclearly articulated approaches to the application of RCR principles in art and design settings, the broad focus of the events was RCR training, including data management standards, Indigenous research ethics and protocols for creative methods, privacy standards, ethics in international settings, and authorship issues. “Conducting Creative Research” was made possible with a SRCR Education and Training Support (SETS) Grant from the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research through the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) and the Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) on behalf of the Tri-Agencies.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: First Nations; Inuit; Métis; Chapter 9; TCPS; RCR Framework; Indigenous

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    On behalf of the three federal research funding Agencies, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) plans to update the guidance in TCPS 2 and the RCR Framework on research involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, communities and territories. This showcase item will describe the process that has been carried out to date and pose questions to CAREB members on their experiences in conducting or reviewing this type of research.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Research Security, Principles, Human Rights, Dual-Use, Culture

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    One of the ways in which the landscape of research ethics is changing today is the increasing integration of research security and research ethics into a broader conception of research integrity. As institutions across Canada and beyond implement new programs to address threats to research security, the intent of this presentation is to lay the groundwork for an ongoing dialogue about the intersections and touchpoints between research security and research ethics within this broad concept of research integrity. In approaching the integration of research security into academic culture and practice there is much to be learned from the research ethics experience. Understanding commonalities and differences between the two will assist research security practitioners in applying research ethics models and best practices. Mutual understanding between the disciplines will also shed light on synergies and opportunities to advance shared research integrity objectives. Further, as we tackle ethical challenges posed by rapid technological development, what collaborative steps can be considered to safeguard Canadian research, researchers and citizens? In order to support enhanced dialogue and identification of common interests and areas for collaboration, this presentation will provide a high-level overview of research security in Canada, including guiding principles, legal requirements, and operational approaches. The second part of the presentation will offer specific examples of issues having both an ethical and security component to illustrate the possibility for collaboration and coordination. These examples will include: the use of dual-use technologies such as artificial intelligence, security threats to personally identifiable or otherwise sensitive information, gene editing advances, genomic surveillance, human rights abuses leveraging technological advances, and integrating cyber considerations into the development of Indigenous data repositories. Efforts to integrate equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in research security approaches and decision-making will also be shared as part of the presentation.
    Keynote
    Keynote Q&A

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Research Ethics Administration

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This workshop will provide a high level introduction to all things research ethics. This will include REB history, evolution and the REB's place within an institution. We will provide a description of board structure, functioning, reviews and resources, as well as the roles of institutional stakeholders (i.e., administrators, board members and researchers). The session will be interactive, with opportunities for questions, sharing practices and discussion.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Broad Consent, Artificial Intelligence, Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Privacy implications of marketing and surveillance are already well studied, and copyright and plagiarism are actively being explored as implications of large language models (LLMs). However, the privacy side of LLMs is not yet prominent on the public radar. The Ethics & Technology Lab at Queen's University, under the supervision of Dr. Catherine Stinson, is conducting research on LLMs and privacy in the private sector. This presentation outlines the results of a Canadian-wide survey of public university research ethics boards regarding the use of web scraping, artificial intelligence (AI), and LLMs in research activities, including how pending federal legislation (Bill C-27) may impact their future use in research projects. This survey, conducted in the fall of 2023, focused on feedback from REB Chairs and managers/supervisors of research ethics offices. The survey results show the need for a more in-depth analysis of the impact of web scraping, AI, and LLMs on research ethics and other research activities, as well as specific guidance from the Advisory Panel on Research Ethics regarding the use of this technology as it relates to research ethics, research integrity, and overall, the responsible conduct of research.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: TCPS2, Multi-jurisdictional review

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This session aims to foster dialogue with the research ethics community on policy and practice regarding the new alternative ethics review model for multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research. The session will begin with an overview of the single REB review model of multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research and provide further nuance on its applicability provided by the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. This will be followed by three panelists who will share their perspectives and practical experiences in applying the single REB review model outlined in the TCPS. Discussions will focus on the streamlining process, the challenges that may arise and solutions to address them, as well as any additional recommendations panelists may have that could help benefit the research ethics community in applying the single REB review model. Moderator: Dr. Annabelle Cumyn Panelists: Hanan Abdel-Akher (Secretariat), Guillaume Paré (Polytechnique Montréal), Julie Joza (University of Waterloo), and Nicholas Reymond (University of Saskatchewan).
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Research Ethics Administration

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This workshop will provide a high level introduction to all things research ethics. This will include REB history, evolution and the REB's place within an institution. We will provide a description of board structure, functioning, reviews and resources, as well as the roles of institutional stakeholders (i.e., administrators, board members and researchers). The session will be interactive, with opportunities for questions, sharing practices and discussion.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Patient-Oriented Research

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Purposeful knowledge dissemination planning is a central tenet of a patient-oriented or community-based approach to research. Granting agencies, governments, and healthcare organizations are becoming increasingly more attentive to the ethical considerations that exist alongside knowledge dissemination work. This has resulted not only in a need for support for many researchers who might have less experience in this area, but for research ethics boards who may need support in identifying and inquiring about ethical issues related to knowledge dissemination. We developed a tool to support the work of research ethics boards and conducted a validation process (this was presented at CAREB in 2022). REB expert input resulted in very helpful feedback that suggested we design two separate guidance tools. The first tool, which is heavily based on the original tool that underwent validation, is meant to support research ethics boards with identifying and inquiring about possible gaps in knowledge dissemination plans as stated in research ethics applications, that could impact whether proposed research projects are ethically sound. The second tool is meant to assist researchers and trainees in creating ethical knowledge dissemination plans to support them with closing the loop and sharing back findings with knowledge users and community partners. Our goal is to strengthen knowledge dissemination planning at the research planning stage, prompt discussion about what makes an ethical knowledge dissemination plan, and encourage researchers to think deeper about disseminating the results of their work. We would also like to report back on the interesting progression of and learnings from this project, as it has been an iterative process, and has changed over time based on knowledge user feedback. It is a true example of developing a knowledge translation support product with the engagement of various knowledge users and audiences in mind.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Multi-Jurisdictional Research, Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Reaching for Tools: Gaps in Awareness of Research Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research in Art and Design Scholarship” is a Conference Showcase Hall presentation that asks how standards for responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics (RE) are understood and implemented in art and design scholarship. It offers a summary of issues including: What is the status of RE and RCR practices and procedures in art, design, and interdisciplinary contexts? What needs to be developed? What are research priorities in this field? It describes how the research offices of Emily Carr University of Art and Design (ECU) and OCAD University (OCADU) jointly developed a program of presentations and workshops called "Conducting Creative Research (CCR)” to address these gaps (2021-2023). Emerging from perceptions of inadequate and unclearly articulated approaches to the application of RCR principles in art and design settings, the broad focus of the events was RCR training, including data management standards, Indigenous research ethics and protocols for creative methods, privacy standards, ethics in international settings, and authorship issues. “Conducting Creative Research” was made possible with a SRCR Education and Training Support (SETS) Grant from the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research through the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) and the Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) on behalf of the Tri-Agencies.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: First Nations; Inuit; Métis; Chapter 9; TCPS; RCR Framework; Indigenous

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    On behalf of the three federal research funding Agencies, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) plans to update the guidance in TCPS 2 and the RCR Framework on research involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, communities and territories. This showcase item will describe the process that has been carried out to date and pose questions to CAREB members on their experiences in conducting or reviewing this type of research.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Adaptive platform, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    There has been recent interest in leveraging adaptive platform randomized controlled trials as tools for clinical evidence generation. These designs have been employed in oncology, but recently have gained considerable attention and much more widespread uptake following their successful implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is anticipated that research ethics boards will be increasingly asked to review research involving these designs, and researchers conducting these trials need to be aware of ethical considerations relevant to their designs. Accordingly, this talk will review these trials, contrast them with conventional parallel group single intervention trials, and provide an opportunity to collectively discuss pertinent ethical considerations.
    Keynote
    Keynote Q&A

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Accessibility, Inclusion, Neurodiversity, Social Justice, Research Ethics

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Bioethicists have been proactive in their attempt at preventing the exclusion of people from socially identifiable marginalized groups. However, in decision making spaces such as research ethics boards, there is no procedure to recognize or prevent the exclusion of non-socially identifiable groups. My research focuses on how people who are neurodiverse may be inadvertently and unjustly excluded from participation in clinical trials and presents recommendations for REB members to ensure justice for this group.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Bots, Scammers, Fraudulent research participants, Sham participants, Recruitment

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Aim: To share collaborative methods of mitigating bots, scammers and sham research participation in health research between research teams and Research Ethics Boards (REB). Background: The use of social media recruitment is becoming increasingly popular, especially as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic period when most research required novel strategies to recruit participants and collect data online. However, as conducting both recruitment and data collection using online platforms increase in popularity, so does the research participation of bots, scammers and sham participants (Godinho et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021; Ridge et al., 2023; Roehl & Harland, 2022). Our mixed methods study designed to understand the types and impact of peer loneliness amongst adolescents with chronic pain in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was not immune to sham research participants. The prevalence of bots, scammers and sham participants lead our team to streamline methods to identify these participants and exclude them from both phases of our mixed methods study in order to maintain data quality. Methods: Due to the mixed-method nature of our study, both quantitative and qualitative strategies were developed to deter and screen out non-eligible participants. Our quantitative survey employed strategies suggested by others as well as newly developed ones including: use of Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA), double data verification questions, and data surge screening (Jones et al., 2021). Our qualitative phase, which captured data using individual interviews via Zoom, employed strategies including mandatory use of Zoom cameras throughout the interview, data verification questions, and provision of photo identification prior to initiating the interview. Consultation with the local REB as well as sharing published articles on the topic provided support for the use of some of these processes. Results: As a result of the methods developed to exclude bots, scammers and sham participants, during the quantitative survey phase of the study, participants were excluded by screening for data surges (n = 1, 279), by invalid postal codes (n = 103), by data surges and invalid postal codes (n = 882) and by double data verification questions (n = 53). During the qualitative survey phase of the study, a total of two participants were excluded due to suspected double participation. The corresponding survey data from each of these participants was also removed from the study. Conclusions: In our experience, close collaboration between the research team and the REB was essential in ensuring ethical conduction of the research that allowed for the detection of non-eligible participants and ensured data integrity. Due to the increased prevalence of bots, scammers and sham research participants in health research, continued bilateral education and development of detection strategies between the researchers and REBs are needed to maintain and preserve rigorous data quality.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community-based research, Indigenous-engaged research ethics, Proportionate review; Ethics creep; Chapter 9

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    I acknowledge the vital importance of Indigenous voices in this area of research ethics practice. As a non-Indigenous Research Ethics Board administrator, I recognize and thank the Indigenous-engaged researchers and research ethics board members who have provided feedback and guidance that I will speak to. This talk facilitates discussion of strategies that REBs may employ to guide review of research that is led by Indigenous communities, with the goal of addressing ‘ethics creep’, recognizing the autonomy of Indigenous communities, and fostering mutual respect between REB members, researchers, and the communities. ‘Over-review’ by research ethics boards may result in unnecessary burdens to researchers and communities, and may result in researchers adopting inappropriate or culturally awkward processes. Using research ethics scenarios, this talk explores the role of Research Ethics Boards in research that is directed by Indigenous communities. The scenarios will explore important questions about jurisdictional boundaries, roles & responsibilities, and current REB practices. Adopting key guidance from Chapter 9, and with an eye to ‘proportionate review’, we can understand how research ethics boards can contribute positively, while meeting institutional REB requirements.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Responsible Conduct of Research, Research Ethics, Equity-focused outcomes, Intersecting accountabilities, Community impact

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Research ethics and the responsible conduct of research co-exist as interdependent elements within the human research ethics ecosystem. The balance of power, authority and autonomy between and among these two institutional and human research ecosystem elements are frequently topics of focus that guide, inform and influence how these functions are designed, resourced and ultimately function within institutions engaged in human research activity. Drawing on the role that relationships play within the human research ecosystem this workshop session will discuss the intersection of research ethics and the responsible conduct of research and pragmatic approaches to managing the REB oversight and accountability responsibilities through use of an enhanced principle-based decision-making framework, accountabilities concept and interactive case-based discussion. This session builds on the pre-conference workshop session from the 2023 CAREB-ACCER conference and will apply anti-racism and anti-oppression practices grounded in equity-focused outcomes. In this interactive case-scenario based workshop session we will discuss and apply: (1) a human research ethics and responsible conduct of research institutional accountability triad model; (2) a principle-based knowledge to action decision-making framework; and (3) a principle-based accountability concept in providing pragmatic approaches to managing the REB oversight and accountability responsibilities at the intersection of research ethics and the responsible conduct of research. Session Details For Attendees: This is an interactive session that will use various virtual interactive participatory modalities. Although not required to gain benefit, attendees will benefit most from this session as active participants, contributing to engagement prompts and questions and the idea board activities. Resources and work products from the session will be made available to attendees to make use of within their own institutions and for their continued learning, use and knowledge sharing. Session Learning Objectives: By the end of this session, attendees should be able to: 1. Identify how, why and when compliance related scenarios should involve the REB. 2. Determine when and how to involve additional interested parties (internal and external to the institution) within the research ethics compliance process; and 3. Identify and explore strategies for addressing common challenges faced by REBs and Research Ethics Administrators in the face of compliance issues
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression in Research Ethics Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    In ethical consideration of the CAREB-ACER 2024 conference call to disrupt legacy power dynamics, a shift is needed in thinking and practice around the habitual use of Crown photography of indigenous children to research difficult history (Canada’s residential school system). Informed by my current graduate thesis research on the social semiotic analysis of the use of Crown photography, historical images of children have become synonymous with maltreatment while images of those people responsible for the difficult history remain hidden and rarely utilized. Following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action around education and archival access to documentation, provincial and federal archives increasingly facilitate public online access to Crown photography. Some photos are as recent as circa 1960’s where the children may still be alive today and in their late 70’s or 80’s and who hold no agency over the use of their images (see https://www.flickr.com/photos/alberta_archives/albums/72157649831501971/). Crown photography was done by representatives of the Crown for the purposes of showcasing assimilation. The photos were shared amongst residential school staff, federal and provincial agents, and media before passing into archival holdings where copyright remains in perpetuity with the Crown. In the case of a research analysis of images available to the public on the internet, ethics approval or community engagement are currently not needed which calls for ethical consideration of the impact that this could have on the well-being of those now grown children. In line with this year’s conference theme around the future of research ethics and navigating the changing landscape, this presentation proposes a broader scope of research ethics within the TCPS 2 policy that could include the use of Crown photography and an ethics analytical tool that promotes reflexivity on behalf of researchers, ethics’ committees, post-secondary institutions, and the community at large while facilitating accountability between those in control of the images and the children and their communities that present in the images. A presentation on current research and educational practices using Crown photography informs community collaboration, anti-racism and anti-oppression, research integrity and building capacity: inappropriate photo credit conventions, absence of indigenous community engagement and guidance, missing context, monolithic thinking, Crown copyright infringement, fair use/dealings, child advocacy and current ethical child protection initiatives. While Canadian copyright guidelines serve to protect the copyright holders of images – in this case the Crown – there are no ethical guidelines involving the use, dissemination, or protection of images of children. While some researchers call for the return of these images to the source communities or visual repatriation and an enhanced critical mindset in choosing images (Giancarlo et al., 2021; Miller & Hunt, 2022), future reconciliation must also realize a call for the ethical use of these images as once they are digitized and out in the world wide web, it is impossible to pull them back. REFERENCES Giancarlo, A., Forsyth, J., Hiwi, B., & McKee, T. (2021). Methodology and indigenous memory: using photographs to anchor critical reflections on Indian residential school experiences. Visual Studies 36(4-5), 406-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2021.1878929 Miller, K., & Hunt, C. (2022). A picture is worth a thousand words: Visual microaggressions in teacher education. The Urban Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-022-00636-3
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Multi-Jurisdictional Research, Community Collaboration, Institutional Review, HRPP

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Nova Scotia Health is a national leader in delivering high-quality clinical trials to over 17,500 patients enrolled in 400-500 interventional studies at any given time. Nova Scotia Health launched a Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) with the vision of increasing patient access to clinical trials through strategic supports that provide researchers with the people, processes, and technology needed to scale both investigator led and industry sponsored trials. The partnership journey through our Health Innovation Hub has delivered a sustainable business model that drives local economic benefits while embedding research into models of care. In alignment with the CTU, Nova Scotia Health is seeking accreditation through Human Research Accreditation Canada through the implementation of a Human Research Protection Program (HRPP). As the second health system in the country to seek accreditation, Nova Scotia has developed a novel framework that catalyzes capacity building, deepens collaborations, and has transformed our health system culture through clinical trials. Focused on delivery of high-quality clinical research, the HRPP platform provided a roadmap to streamline processes to improve the way studies are reviewed, approved, and monitored for compliance. The Research Ethics Board and Research Quality Program led this effort by integrating multifaceted reviews encompassing privacy, methodology, and ethics. This talk will highlight our journey and resources required to build the CTU and HRPP and the lessons learned along the way that have resulted in an Atlantic Canadian REB review process.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Responsible Conduct of Research, Research Ethics, Equity-focused outcomes, Intersecting accountabilities, Community impact

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Research ethics and the responsible conduct of research co-exist as interdependent elements within the human research ethics ecosystem. The balance of power, authority and autonomy between and among these two institutional and human research ecosystem elements are frequently topics of focus that guide, inform and influence how these functions are designed, resourced and ultimately function within institutions engaged in human research activity. Drawing on the role that relationships play within the human research ecosystem this workshop session will discuss the intersection of research ethics and the responsible conduct of research and pragmatic approaches to managing the REB oversight and accountability responsibilities through use of an enhanced principle-based decision-making framework, accountabilities concept and interactive case-based discussion. This session builds on the pre-conference workshop session from the 2023 CAREB-ACCER conference and will apply anti-racism and anti-oppression practices grounded in equity-focused outcomes. In this interactive case-scenario based workshop session we will discuss and apply: (1) a human research ethics and responsible conduct of research institutional accountability triad model; (2) a principle-based knowledge to action decision-making framework; and (3) a principle-based accountability concept in providing pragmatic approaches to managing the REB oversight and accountability responsibilities at the intersection of research ethics and the responsible conduct of research. Session Details For Attendees: This is an interactive session that will use various virtual interactive participatory modalities. Although not required to gain benefit, attendees will benefit most from this session as active participants, contributing to engagement prompts and questions and the idea board activities. Resources and work products from the session will be made available to attendees to make use of within their own institutions and for their continued learning, use and knowledge sharing. Session Learning Objectives: By the end of this session, attendees should be able to: 1. Identify how, why and when compliance related scenarios should involve the REB. 2. Determine when and how to involve additional interested parties (internal and external to the institution) within the research ethics compliance process; and 3. Identify and explore strategies for addressing common challenges faced by REBs and Research Ethics Administrators in the face of compliance issues
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: CIHR, Minimal Consent, Clinical Research

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    We return to CAREB to present the first draft of the Pan-Canadian Minimal Consent for Clinical Research, the core objective of the CIHR Pan-Canadian Minimal Consent project: the production of a template that outlines a list of minimal requirements for research consent that, along with the additional required elements for submission of a complete research package, can be used by TCPS-compliant Canadian research ethics boards (REBs) to document the informed consent process thus facilitating the harmonization of ethics review of clinical studies. We again seek CAREB input as this community of practice is instrumental to the project’s success. Clinical studies that involve multiple hospitals or research programs require ethics approval in each applicable jurisdiction. Requirements for ethics approval differ among institutional and provincial REBs, including requirements for informed consent, a key element of the ethics submission. The requests for changes in the materials are at times complex and cause delays, due to inconsistencies across REB requirements. Informed consent forms are getting longer but are not leading to increased awareness of risk on the part of the participant. Further, participants often report dissatisfaction with these documents and have called for simplification of informed consent forms where possible. The scope for this project is the informed consent requirements for clinical studies involving human participants (clinical trials and observational studies) that are not minimal risk. This project is co- lead by the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and COVID-19 Network of Clinical Trials Networks and CIHR’s Ethics Office. It follows the methods of a previous successful project to create a core set of elements for documents used to obtain participant consent for human genomics research in Canada which is now published in CMAJ. The CIHR Pan-Canadian Minimal Consent Project is led by a small team (the authors of this presentation) that is guided by an Advisory Group of experts from across Canada including REB administrators, research ethics experts, researchers, and patients. The second project deliverable that we seek to present at CAREB is the first draft of the Minimal Consent. After conducting a gap analysis and discussing it in various fora, the team proceeded to identify, from a participant’s point of view, what requirements are necessary to help making a decision regarding the active participation on a research. Elements incidental to the protection of the participant were left out from the draft consent template and now are part of its companion, the research package. After incorporating CAREB’s input we will have a new meeting of the Advisory Committee and a series of consultations with patients and their representatives and other stakeholders. We expect to have a pre-final draft uploaded for public consultation later this year. After reflecting on all input, we intend to submit the template for publication by early 2025.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Multi-Jurisdictional Research, Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Reaching for Tools: Gaps in Awareness of Research Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research in Art and Design Scholarship” is a Conference Showcase Hall presentation that asks how standards for responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics (RE) are understood and implemented in art and design scholarship. It offers a summary of issues including: What is the status of RE and RCR practices and procedures in art, design, and interdisciplinary contexts? What needs to be developed? What are research priorities in this field? It describes how the research offices of Emily Carr University of Art and Design (ECU) and OCAD University (OCADU) jointly developed a program of presentations and workshops called "Conducting Creative Research (CCR)” to address these gaps (2021-2023). Emerging from perceptions of inadequate and unclearly articulated approaches to the application of RCR principles in art and design settings, the broad focus of the events was RCR training, including data management standards, Indigenous research ethics and protocols for creative methods, privacy standards, ethics in international settings, and authorship issues. “Conducting Creative Research” was made possible with a SRCR Education and Training Support (SETS) Grant from the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research through the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) and the Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) on behalf of the Tri-Agencies.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: First Nations; Inuit; Métis; Chapter 9; TCPS; RCR Framework; Indigenous

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    On behalf of the three federal research funding Agencies, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) plans to update the guidance in TCPS 2 and the RCR Framework on research involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, communities and territories. This showcase item will describe the process that has been carried out to date and pose questions to CAREB members on their experiences in conducting or reviewing this type of research.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Artificial Intelligence, Digital Technology, Machine Learning, Health Regulation

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    The role of data and analytics has never been more important in society and, in particular, for health applications. There has been a rapid change in the nature of data used in health research and an increased focus on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the analysis of those emerging data sources. There are many conflicting points of view on the utility of AI in a health context and a lack of clarity on the implications for the health systems more generally. This talk will cover the myths, the debates, and the skepticism (from all sides) and outline a proposed direction for the role of AI in the future of health. We will additionally cover the intersection of AI with a precision public health frame and the potential impact and unintended consequences of this framing. The talk will include implications related to bias, health equity, surveillance and causal inference. The talk will conclude by summarizing the implications for epidemiology research and training across ethics and health domains.
    Keynote
    Keynote Q&A

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Research Ethics

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    It is widely recognized that systemic barriers limit the participation of women and marginalized groups in research enterprise in Canada, with lower rates of academic appointment, secured funding, pay, mentorship, and training opportunities. NSERC acknowledges that incorporating EDI in research promotes excellence, relevance to society as a whole, and fuels innovation. It protects communities and promotes equitable distribution of benefits. It benefits communities impacted by research, including those historically harmed by research, and fosters belonging and inclusion for participants. Generally speaking, a lack of confidence in addressing EDI challenges coupled with a lack of relevant learning and resources has acted as a barrier for REBs to provide relevant and appropriate EDI-related feedback. The presenters partnered with Viswali Consulting in 2023 to develop and deliver an open webinar series and workbooks to support Ontario colleges in building an understanding and appreciation for the relationship between EDI and REB principles and practices. This session will share learnings and tools from the webinar series to help participants embed EDI considerations in REB feedback at their respective institutions. Presenters will facilitate a discussion on gaps and needs to inform the development of future EDI-related tools, resources, professional development opportunities, and advocacy efforts for research stakeholders. Participants will also be invited to share their EDI-promoting tips, practices, and experiences.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Research Security Data Ownership, Management and Governance

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    In 2021, Canada’s three federal funding agencies released a policy on research data management, including a mandate that grant recipients are “required to deposit into a digital repository all digital research data, metadata and code” that support their research outputs. This is not a requirement for open sharing, but most academic and journal data repositories are designed with open sharing as a default, and the wording strongly encourages sharing where ethical and other requirements allow. But when can data on human participants be shared safely? Many researchers promise research participants that they will only share data that has been anonymized, or even say that the data they collect is anonymous because no identifiers are collected. But when is this true? How can a researcher, a research ethics officer, or a data curator tell when data may pose a risk to confidentiality? Survey data often contains hidden indirect identifiers that could be exploited by a skilled attacker to determine a participants’ identity – anything from a date to a distance to a selected interview language could, in the wrong context or combination, pose risk. In this workshop I will introduce some of the theory that explains why data anonymization is so difficult, discuss techniques for assessing the risk in a dataset, and share some of the data anonymization issues I have encountered as both a data curator and a REB member.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: TCPS2, Broad Consent

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Since the launch of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS (2022) in January 2023, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (Secretariat) has received several requests to clarify the Policy’s new guidance on broad consent. These requests have resulted in the publication of a set of new public interpretations on the topic In addition, in May 2023, SRCR and PRE published guidance on the requirement for REB review of research using social media platforms (presented during last year’s CAREB conference). A complementary set of guidance on the use of crowdsourcing platforms for recruitment in research is in development. In this session, the Secretariat will address the most frequently asked questions about the new public interpretations on broad consent and present the new guidance document on the use of crowdsourcing platforms.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Recruitment, Digital platforms, Covert, Research Ethics Board Collaboration, Ethics review

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This case study will outline how researchers and the REB worked collaboratively to apply TCPS 2 principles to access a hard-to-reach study population. A doctoral student and their supervising faculty investigator aimed to investigate the gig work model in the healthcare industry by interviewing personal support workers (PSWs) and health care aids. Little is known about the gig care work model in Canada. As the researchers experienced several challenges in recruiting study participants, an alternative recruitment strategy was proposed. This involved posing online under fictitious pretenses, as a person looking to hire a health care worker on several digital platforms. The proposed recruitment methodology was a novel method to both the research team and the REB. Ethical concerns were identified as well as legal concerns with respect to the platforms’ statements of use. The researchers will discuss how they used the TCPS 2 principles to design the covert recruitment methodology. Staff from the Office of Research Ethics will discuss how the REB members approached the ethical review of the proposed study. REBs and the staff who support them will learn how the researchers and REB members approached the ethical dilemmas they faced around covert recruitment methods.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Artificial intelligence, Ethical AI, Transparency, Privacy

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as a research tool has significant implications for research ethics boards. Some institutions may transfer broad AI review responsibilities on to REBs, while other REBs may consider AI tools only within specific proposals for research involving human participants. Both scenarios will present challenging questions requiring REB members to apply core understandings of how AI works and how to apply principles of ethical AI in the field of the research project. Facilitated by some of Canada’s leading experts in AI ethics, this workshop will provide participants with a solid grounding in the nature of AI tools and advances in AI ethics as well as examples of AI ethics challenges to date. Participants will then leverage this information in smaller-group discussions on how AI principles can apply to REB assessments in specific research disciplines (e.g. medicine, social science, etc.). Topics of discussion will include: choosing amongst the various existing ethical AI frameworks (e.g. the Montreal Declaration in Canada, the Berkman-Klein Principled AI Framework in the USA, and the Digital Catapult Ethical Framework in the UK), reconciling inconsistencies between different frameworks, addressing the underlying tension between individual ethical principles (e.g. participant privacy versus data transparency), and how AI-specific guidance is situated within the broader landscape of research ethics and existing regulatory frameworks.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Consent, Inclusive Research, Cognitive disabilities, Ethics Review, Research processes and methods

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This two-part educational workshop aims to interrogate the balance between social justice advancements and human research protection. The main goal is to provide practical tools to ethics review board members and administrators to better understand and help researchers remove barriers to inclusive research with persons with cognitive disabilities. Persons with cognitive disabilities include persons living with dementia, intellectual or developmental disabilities and anyone self-identifying as being neurodivergent. The learning objectives of the workshop are: Part 1: Workshop attendees will learn best practices in inclusive research methods with persons with cognitive disabilities. This will include information on how to intentionally and meaningfully include persons with cognitive disabilities in academic research, and how to make research processes and methods more accessible to them. Hand-on exercises will support learning. Part 2: Workshop attendees will learn how informed consent is conceptualized and practical tools that researchers may use to satisfy informed consent requirements. Resources and strategies for ethics board review members to support decision-making in ethics applications involving participants with cognitive disabilities will be offered. Principles from the tri-council ethical conduct guidelines will be discussed with an ethics board director in the context of research involving participants with cognitive disabilities.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Multi-jurisdictional Research, Military, Social Science Research, Canadian Armed Forces

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    The Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) Social Science Research Review Board (SSRRB) is mandated by Defence policy (Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5061 and 5062) to review social science research with members of the Defence Team (e.g., actively serving CAF members of the Regular Forces or Primary Reserves, DND public servants, cadets, applicants and prospects) from an ethical, methodological, and technical/contextual perspective. The SSRRB ensures that the research adheres to the TCPS 2 and respects the rights of Defence Team personnel, that the research is conducted in accordance with accepted professional practices, and that it considers and incorporates organizationally and contextually appropriate factors that are unique to the CAF including considering the vulnerability of CAF members, and demonstrates appropriate organizational support from internal sponsors and commands for the research to occur. This applies to internally generated social science research, as well as to research proposed by external-to-defence researchers, including academic research. As such, the SSRRB regularly deals with multijurisdictional research when academic researchers propose research with Defence Team members. The SSRRB has been adapting its approach to multijurisdictional review to facilitate research with Defence Team personnel. The SSRRB has adopted several approaches to navigate reviews of multijurisdictional research and will be continuing to work with academic REBs to adapt its processes accordingly. The SSRRB’s experience with multijurisdictional research reviews and working with researchers from various institutions, may benefit members of the ethics community and provide an opportunity to obtain feedback and suggestions on best practices to apply the review models, where the SSRRB is accountable for research within the CAF/DND, and has the familiarity and expertise for working with the Defence Team, including characteristics unique to the military that may not be familiar to, or considered by academic REBs.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Artificial intelligence, Ethical AI, Transparency, Privacy

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as a research tool has significant implications for research ethics boards. Some institutions may transfer broad AI review responsibilities on to REBs, while other REBs may consider AI tools only within specific proposals for research involving human participants. Both scenarios will present challenging questions requiring REB members to apply core understandings of how AI works and how to apply principles of ethical AI in the field of the research project. Facilitated by some of Canada’s leading experts in AI ethics, this workshop will provide participants with a solid grounding in the nature of AI tools and advances in AI ethics as well as examples of AI ethics challenges to date. Participants will then leverage this information in smaller-group discussions on how AI principles can apply to REB assessments in specific research disciplines (e.g. medicine, social science, etc.). Topics of discussion will include: choosing amongst the various existing ethical AI frameworks (e.g. the Montreal Declaration in Canada, the Berkman-Klein Principled AI Framework in the USA, and the Digital Catapult Ethical Framework in the UK), reconciling inconsistencies between different frameworks, addressing the underlying tension between individual ethical principles (e.g. participant privacy versus data transparency), and how AI-specific guidance is situated within the broader landscape of research ethics and existing regulatory frameworks.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Consent, Inclusive Research, Cognitive disabilities, Ethics Review, Research processes and methods

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This two-part educational workshop aims to interrogate the balance between social justice advancements and human research protection. The main goal is to provide practical tools to ethics review board members and administrators to better understand and help researchers remove barriers to inclusive research with persons with cognitive disabilities. Persons with cognitive disabilities include persons living with dementia, intellectual or developmental disabilities and anyone self-identifying as being neurodivergent. The learning objectives of the workshop are: Part 1: Workshop attendees will learn best practices in inclusive research methods with persons with cognitive disabilities. This will include information on how to intentionally and meaningfully include persons with cognitive disabilities in academic research, and how to make research processes and methods more accessible to them. Hand-on exercises will support learning. Part 2: Workshop attendees will learn how informed consent is conceptualized and practical tools that researchers may use to satisfy informed consent requirements. Resources and strategies for ethics board review members to support decision-making in ethics applications involving participants with cognitive disabilities will be offered. Principles from the tri-council ethical conduct guidelines will be discussed with an ethics board director in the context of research involving participants with cognitive disabilities.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Multi-Jurisdictional Research, Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Reaching for Tools: Gaps in Awareness of Research Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research in Art and Design Scholarship” is a Conference Showcase Hall presentation that asks how standards for responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics (RE) are understood and implemented in art and design scholarship. It offers a summary of issues including: What is the status of RE and RCR practices and procedures in art, design, and interdisciplinary contexts? What needs to be developed? What are research priorities in this field? It describes how the research offices of Emily Carr University of Art and Design (ECU) and OCAD University (OCADU) jointly developed a program of presentations and workshops called "Conducting Creative Research (CCR)” to address these gaps (2021-2023). Emerging from perceptions of inadequate and unclearly articulated approaches to the application of RCR principles in art and design settings, the broad focus of the events was RCR training, including data management standards, Indigenous research ethics and protocols for creative methods, privacy standards, ethics in international settings, and authorship issues. “Conducting Creative Research” was made possible with a SRCR Education and Training Support (SETS) Grant from the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research through the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) and the Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) on behalf of the Tri-Agencies.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: First Nations; Inuit; Métis; Chapter 9; TCPS; RCR Framework; Indigenous

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    On behalf of the three federal research funding Agencies, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) plans to update the guidance in TCPS 2 and the RCR Framework on research involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, communities and territories. This showcase item will describe the process that has been carried out to date and pose questions to CAREB members on their experiences in conducting or reviewing this type of research.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Research Security, Principles, Human Rights, Dual-Use, Culture

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    One of the ways in which the landscape of research ethics is changing today is the increasing integration of research security and research ethics into a broader conception of research integrity. As institutions across Canada and beyond implement new programs to address threats to research security, the intent of this presentation is to lay the groundwork for an ongoing dialogue about the intersections and touchpoints between research security and research ethics within this broad concept of research integrity. In approaching the integration of research security into academic culture and practice there is much to be learned from the research ethics experience. Understanding commonalities and differences between the two will assist research security practitioners in applying research ethics models and best practices. Mutual understanding between the disciplines will also shed light on synergies and opportunities to advance shared research integrity objectives. Further, as we tackle ethical challenges posed by rapid technological development, what collaborative steps can be considered to safeguard Canadian research, researchers and citizens? In order to support enhanced dialogue and identification of common interests and areas for collaboration, this presentation will provide a high-level overview of research security in Canada, including guiding principles, legal requirements, and operational approaches. The second part of the presentation will offer specific examples of issues having both an ethical and security component to illustrate the possibility for collaboration and coordination. These examples will include: the use of dual-use technologies such as artificial intelligence, security threats to personally identifiable or otherwise sensitive information, gene editing advances, genomic surveillance, human rights abuses leveraging technological advances, and integrating cyber considerations into the development of Indigenous data repositories. Efforts to integrate equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in research security approaches and decision-making will also be shared as part of the presentation.
    Keynote
    Keynote Q&A

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Research Ethics Administration

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This workshop will provide a high level introduction to all things research ethics. This will include REB history, evolution and the REB's place within an institution. We will provide a description of board structure, functioning, reviews and resources, as well as the roles of institutional stakeholders (i.e., administrators, board members and researchers). The session will be interactive, with opportunities for questions, sharing practices and discussion.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Broad Consent, Artificial Intelligence, Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Privacy implications of marketing and surveillance are already well studied, and copyright and plagiarism are actively being explored as implications of large language models (LLMs). However, the privacy side of LLMs is not yet prominent on the public radar. The Ethics & Technology Lab at Queen's University, under the supervision of Dr. Catherine Stinson, is conducting research on LLMs and privacy in the private sector. This presentation outlines the results of a Canadian-wide survey of public university research ethics boards regarding the use of web scraping, artificial intelligence (AI), and LLMs in research activities, including how pending federal legislation (Bill C-27) may impact their future use in research projects. This survey, conducted in the fall of 2023, focused on feedback from REB Chairs and managers/supervisors of research ethics offices. The survey results show the need for a more in-depth analysis of the impact of web scraping, AI, and LLMs on research ethics and other research activities, as well as specific guidance from the Advisory Panel on Research Ethics regarding the use of this technology as it relates to research ethics, research integrity, and overall, the responsible conduct of research.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: TCPS2, Multi-jurisdictional review

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This session aims to foster dialogue with the research ethics community on policy and practice regarding the new alternative ethics review model for multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research. The session will begin with an overview of the single REB review model of multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research and provide further nuance on its applicability provided by the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. This will be followed by three panelists who will share their perspectives and practical experiences in applying the single REB review model outlined in the TCPS. Discussions will focus on the streamlining process, the challenges that may arise and solutions to address them, as well as any additional recommendations panelists may have that could help benefit the research ethics community in applying the single REB review model. Moderator: Dr. Annabelle Cumyn Panelists: Hanan Abdel-Akher (Secretariat), Guillaume Paré (Polytechnique Montréal), Julie Joza (University of Waterloo), and Nicholas Reymond (University of Saskatchewan).
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Research Ethics Administration

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    This workshop will provide a high level introduction to all things research ethics. This will include REB history, evolution and the REB's place within an institution. We will provide a description of board structure, functioning, reviews and resources, as well as the roles of institutional stakeholders (i.e., administrators, board members and researchers). The session will be interactive, with opportunities for questions, sharing practices and discussion.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Patient-Oriented Research

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Purposeful knowledge dissemination planning is a central tenet of a patient-oriented or community-based approach to research. Granting agencies, governments, and healthcare organizations are becoming increasingly more attentive to the ethical considerations that exist alongside knowledge dissemination work. This has resulted not only in a need for support for many researchers who might have less experience in this area, but for research ethics boards who may need support in identifying and inquiring about ethical issues related to knowledge dissemination. We developed a tool to support the work of research ethics boards and conducted a validation process (this was presented at CAREB in 2022). REB expert input resulted in very helpful feedback that suggested we design two separate guidance tools. The first tool, which is heavily based on the original tool that underwent validation, is meant to support research ethics boards with identifying and inquiring about possible gaps in knowledge dissemination plans as stated in research ethics applications, that could impact whether proposed research projects are ethically sound. The second tool is meant to assist researchers and trainees in creating ethical knowledge dissemination plans to support them with closing the loop and sharing back findings with knowledge users and community partners. Our goal is to strengthen knowledge dissemination planning at the research planning stage, prompt discussion about what makes an ethical knowledge dissemination plan, and encourage researchers to think deeper about disseminating the results of their work. We would also like to report back on the interesting progression of and learnings from this project, as it has been an iterative process, and has changed over time based on knowledge user feedback. It is a true example of developing a knowledge translation support product with the engagement of various knowledge users and audiences in mind.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Multi-Jurisdictional Research, Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Reaching for Tools: Gaps in Awareness of Research Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research in Art and Design Scholarship” is a Conference Showcase Hall presentation that asks how standards for responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics (RE) are understood and implemented in art and design scholarship. It offers a summary of issues including: What is the status of RE and RCR practices and procedures in art, design, and interdisciplinary contexts? What needs to be developed? What are research priorities in this field? It describes how the research offices of Emily Carr University of Art and Design (ECU) and OCAD University (OCADU) jointly developed a program of presentations and workshops called "Conducting Creative Research (CCR)” to address these gaps (2021-2023). Emerging from perceptions of inadequate and unclearly articulated approaches to the application of RCR principles in art and design settings, the broad focus of the events was RCR training, including data management standards, Indigenous research ethics and protocols for creative methods, privacy standards, ethics in international settings, and authorship issues. “Conducting Creative Research” was made possible with a SRCR Education and Training Support (SETS) Grant from the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research through the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) and the Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) on behalf of the Tri-Agencies.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: First Nations; Inuit; Métis; Chapter 9; TCPS; RCR Framework; Indigenous

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    On behalf of the three federal research funding Agencies, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) plans to update the guidance in TCPS 2 and the RCR Framework on research involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, communities and territories. This showcase item will describe the process that has been carried out to date and pose questions to CAREB members on their experiences in conducting or reviewing this type of research.
    Conference Showcase Hall

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Adaptive platform, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    There has been recent interest in leveraging adaptive platform randomized controlled trials as tools for clinical evidence generation. These designs have been employed in oncology, but recently have gained considerable attention and much more widespread uptake following their successful implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is anticipated that research ethics boards will be increasingly asked to review research involving these designs, and researchers conducting these trials need to be aware of ethical considerations relevant to their designs. Accordingly, this talk will review these trials, contrast them with conventional parallel group single intervention trials, and provide an opportunity to collectively discuss pertinent ethical considerations.
    Keynote
    Keynote Q&A

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Accessibility, Inclusion, Neurodiversity, Social Justice, Research Ethics

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Bioethicists have been proactive in their attempt at preventing the exclusion of people from socially identifiable marginalized groups. However, in decision making spaces such as research ethics boards, there is no procedure to recognize or prevent the exclusion of non-socially identifiable groups. My research focuses on how people who are neurodiverse may be inadvertently and unjustly excluded from participation in clinical trials and presents recommendations for REB members to ensure justice for this group.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Bots, Scammers, Fraudulent research participants, Sham participants, Recruitment

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Aim: To share collaborative methods of mitigating bots, scammers and sham research participation in health research between research teams and Research Ethics Boards (REB). Background: The use of social media recruitment is becoming increasingly popular, especially as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic period when most research required novel strategies to recruit participants and collect data online. However, as conducting both recruitment and data collection using online platforms increase in popularity, so does the research participation of bots, scammers and sham participants (Godinho et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021; Ridge et al., 2023; Roehl & Harland, 2022). Our mixed methods study designed to understand the types and impact of peer loneliness amongst adolescents with chronic pain in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was not immune to sham research participants. The prevalence of bots, scammers and sham participants lead our team to streamline methods to identify these participants and exclude them from both phases of our mixed methods study in order to maintain data quality. Methods: Due to the mixed-method nature of our study, both quantitative and qualitative strategies were developed to deter and screen out non-eligible participants. Our quantitative survey employed strategies suggested by others as well as newly developed ones including: use of Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA), double data verification questions, and data surge screening (Jones et al., 2021). Our qualitative phase, which captured data using individual interviews via Zoom, employed strategies including mandatory use of Zoom cameras throughout the interview, data verification questions, and provision of photo identification prior to initiating the interview. Consultation with the local REB as well as sharing published articles on the topic provided support for the use of some of these processes. Results: As a result of the methods developed to exclude bots, scammers and sham participants, during the quantitative survey phase of the study, participants were excluded by screening for data surges (n = 1, 279), by invalid postal codes (n = 103), by data surges and invalid postal codes (n = 882) and by double data verification questions (n = 53). During the qualitative survey phase of the study, a total of two participants were excluded due to suspected double participation. The corresponding survey data from each of these participants was also removed from the study. Conclusions: In our experience, close collaboration between the research team and the REB was essential in ensuring ethical conduction of the research that allowed for the detection of non-eligible participants and ensured data integrity. Due to the increased prevalence of bots, scammers and sham research participants in health research, continued bilateral education and development of detection strategies between the researchers and REBs are needed to maintain and preserve rigorous data quality.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community-based research, Indigenous-engaged research ethics, Proportionate review; Ethics creep; Chapter 9

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    I acknowledge the vital importance of Indigenous voices in this area of research ethics practice. As a non-Indigenous Research Ethics Board administrator, I recognize and thank the Indigenous-engaged researchers and research ethics board members who have provided feedback and guidance that I will speak to. This talk facilitates discussion of strategies that REBs may employ to guide review of research that is led by Indigenous communities, with the goal of addressing ‘ethics creep’, recognizing the autonomy of Indigenous communities, and fostering mutual respect between REB members, researchers, and the communities. ‘Over-review’ by research ethics boards may result in unnecessary burdens to researchers and communities, and may result in researchers adopting inappropriate or culturally awkward processes. Using research ethics scenarios, this talk explores the role of Research Ethics Boards in research that is directed by Indigenous communities. The scenarios will explore important questions about jurisdictional boundaries, roles & responsibilities, and current REB practices. Adopting key guidance from Chapter 9, and with an eye to ‘proportionate review’, we can understand how research ethics boards can contribute positively, while meeting institutional REB requirements.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Responsible Conduct of Research, Research Ethics, Equity-focused outcomes, Intersecting accountabilities, Community impact

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Research ethics and the responsible conduct of research co-exist as interdependent elements within the human research ethics ecosystem. The balance of power, authority and autonomy between and among these two institutional and human research ecosystem elements are frequently topics of focus that guide, inform and influence how these functions are designed, resourced and ultimately function within institutions engaged in human research activity. Drawing on the role that relationships play within the human research ecosystem this workshop session will discuss the intersection of research ethics and the responsible conduct of research and pragmatic approaches to managing the REB oversight and accountability responsibilities through use of an enhanced principle-based decision-making framework, accountabilities concept and interactive case-based discussion. This session builds on the pre-conference workshop session from the 2023 CAREB-ACCER conference and will apply anti-racism and anti-oppression practices grounded in equity-focused outcomes. In this interactive case-scenario based workshop session we will discuss and apply: (1) a human research ethics and responsible conduct of research institutional accountability triad model; (2) a principle-based knowledge to action decision-making framework; and (3) a principle-based accountability concept in providing pragmatic approaches to managing the REB oversight and accountability responsibilities at the intersection of research ethics and the responsible conduct of research. Session Details For Attendees: This is an interactive session that will use various virtual interactive participatory modalities. Although not required to gain benefit, attendees will benefit most from this session as active participants, contributing to engagement prompts and questions and the idea board activities. Resources and work products from the session will be made available to attendees to make use of within their own institutions and for their continued learning, use and knowledge sharing. Session Learning Objectives: By the end of this session, attendees should be able to: 1. Identify how, why and when compliance related scenarios should involve the REB. 2. Determine when and how to involve additional interested parties (internal and external to the institution) within the research ethics compliance process; and 3. Identify and explore strategies for addressing common challenges faced by REBs and Research Ethics Administrators in the face of compliance issues
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Community Collaboration, Data Ownership, Management and Governance, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression in Research Ethics Research Integrity and Misconduct

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    In ethical consideration of the CAREB-ACER 2024 conference call to disrupt legacy power dynamics, a shift is needed in thinking and practice around the habitual use of Crown photography of indigenous children to research difficult history (Canada’s residential school system). Informed by my current graduate thesis research on the social semiotic analysis of the use of Crown photography, historical images of children have become synonymous with maltreatment while images of those people responsible for the difficult history remain hidden and rarely utilized. Following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action around education and archival access to documentation, provincial and federal archives increasingly facilitate public online access to Crown photography. Some photos are as recent as circa 1960’s where the children may still be alive today and in their late 70’s or 80’s and who hold no agency over the use of their images (see https://www.flickr.com/photos/alberta_archives/albums/72157649831501971/). Crown photography was done by representatives of the Crown for the purposes of showcasing assimilation. The photos were shared amongst residential school staff, federal and provincial agents, and media before passing into archival holdings where copyright remains in perpetuity with the Crown. In the case of a research analysis of images available to the public on the internet, ethics approval or community engagement are currently not needed which calls for ethical consideration of the impact that this could have on the well-being of those now grown children. In line with this year’s conference theme around the future of research ethics and navigating the changing landscape, this presentation proposes a broader scope of research ethics within the TCPS 2 policy that could include the use of Crown photography and an ethics analytical tool that promotes reflexivity on behalf of researchers, ethics’ committees, post-secondary institutions, and the community at large while facilitating accountability between those in control of the images and the children and their communities that present in the images. A presentation on current research and educational practices using Crown photography informs community collaboration, anti-racism and anti-oppression, research integrity and building capacity: inappropriate photo credit conventions, absence of indigenous community engagement and guidance, missing context, monolithic thinking, Crown copyright infringement, fair use/dealings, child advocacy and current ethical child protection initiatives. While Canadian copyright guidelines serve to protect the copyright holders of images – in this case the Crown – there are no ethical guidelines involving the use, dissemination, or protection of images of children. While some researchers call for the return of these images to the source communities or visual repatriation and an enhanced critical mindset in choosing images (Giancarlo et al., 2021; Miller & Hunt, 2022), future reconciliation must also realize a call for the ethical use of these images as once they are digitized and out in the world wide web, it is impossible to pull them back. REFERENCES Giancarlo, A., Forsyth, J., Hiwi, B., & McKee, T. (2021). Methodology and indigenous memory: using photographs to anchor critical reflections on Indian residential school experiences. Visual Studies 36(4-5), 406-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2021.1878929 Miller, K., & Hunt, C. (2022). A picture is worth a thousand words: Visual microaggressions in teacher education. The Urban Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-022-00636-3
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Multi-Jurisdictional Research, Community Collaboration, Institutional Review, HRPP

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Nova Scotia Health is a national leader in delivering high-quality clinical trials to over 17,500 patients enrolled in 400-500 interventional studies at any given time. Nova Scotia Health launched a Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) with the vision of increasing patient access to clinical trials through strategic supports that provide researchers with the people, processes, and technology needed to scale both investigator led and industry sponsored trials. The partnership journey through our Health Innovation Hub has delivered a sustainable business model that drives local economic benefits while embedding research into models of care. In alignment with the CTU, Nova Scotia Health is seeking accreditation through Human Research Accreditation Canada through the implementation of a Human Research Protection Program (HRPP). As the second health system in the country to seek accreditation, Nova Scotia has developed a novel framework that catalyzes capacity building, deepens collaborations, and has transformed our health system culture through clinical trials. Focused on delivery of high-quality clinical research, the HRPP platform provided a roadmap to streamline processes to improve the way studies are reviewed, approved, and monitored for compliance. The Research Ethics Board and Research Quality Program led this effort by integrating multifaceted reviews encompassing privacy, methodology, and ethics. This talk will highlight our journey and resources required to build the CTU and HRPP and the lessons learned along the way that have resulted in an Atlantic Canadian REB review process.
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: Responsible Conduct of Research, Research Ethics, Equity-focused outcomes, Intersecting accountabilities, Community impact

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    Research ethics and the responsible conduct of research co-exist as interdependent elements within the human research ethics ecosystem. The balance of power, authority and autonomy between and among these two institutional and human research ecosystem elements are frequently topics of focus that guide, inform and influence how these functions are designed, resourced and ultimately function within institutions engaged in human research activity. Drawing on the role that relationships play within the human research ecosystem this workshop session will discuss the intersection of research ethics and the responsible conduct of research and pragmatic approaches to managing the REB oversight and accountability responsibilities through use of an enhanced principle-based decision-making framework, accountabilities concept and interactive case-based discussion. This session builds on the pre-conference workshop session from the 2023 CAREB-ACCER conference and will apply anti-racism and anti-oppression practices grounded in equity-focused outcomes. In this interactive case-scenario based workshop session we will discuss and apply: (1) a human research ethics and responsible conduct of research institutional accountability triad model; (2) a principle-based knowledge to action decision-making framework; and (3) a principle-based accountability concept in providing pragmatic approaches to managing the REB oversight and accountability responsibilities at the intersection of research ethics and the responsible conduct of research. Session Details For Attendees: This is an interactive session that will use various virtual interactive participatory modalities. Although not required to gain benefit, attendees will benefit most from this session as active participants, contributing to engagement prompts and questions and the idea board activities. Resources and work products from the session will be made available to attendees to make use of within their own institutions and for their continued learning, use and knowledge sharing. Session Learning Objectives: By the end of this session, attendees should be able to: 1. Identify how, why and when compliance related scenarios should involve the REB. 2. Determine when and how to involve additional interested parties (internal and external to the institution) within the research ethics compliance process; and 3. Identify and explore strategies for addressing common challenges faced by REBs and Research Ethics Administrators in the face of compliance issues
    Sessions

  • SESSION KEYWORDS: CIHR, Minimal Consent, Clinical Research

    SESSION ABSTRACT

    We return to CAREB to present the first draft of the Pan-Canadian Minimal Consent for Clinical Research, the core objective of the CIHR Pan-Canadian Minimal Consent project: the production of a template that outlines a list of minimal requirements for research consent that, along with the additional required elements for submission of a complete research package, can be used by TCPS-compliant Canadian research ethics boards (REBs) to document the informed consent process thus facilitating the harmonization of ethics review of clinical studies. We again seek CAREB input as this community of practice is instrumental to the project’s success. Clinical studies that involve multiple hospitals or research programs require ethics approval in each applicable jurisdiction. Requirements for ethics approval differ among institutional and provincial REBs, including requirements for informed consent, a key element of the ethics submission. The requests for changes in the materials are at times complex and cause delays, due to inconsistencies across REB requirements. Informed consent forms are getting longer but are not leading to increased awareness of risk on the part of the participant. Further, participants often report dissatisfaction with these documents and have called for simplification of informed consent forms where possible. The scope for this project is the informed consent requirements for clinical studies involving human participants (clinical trials and observational studies) that are not minimal risk. This project is co- lead by the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and COVID-19 Network of Clinical Trials Networks and CIHR’s Ethics Office. It follows the methods of a previous successful project to create a core set of elements for documents used to obtain participant consent for human genomics research in Canada which is now published in CMAJ. The CIHR Pan-Canadian Minimal Consent Project is led by a small team (the authors of this presentation) that is guided by an Advisory Group of experts from across Canada including REB administrators, research ethics experts, researchers, and patients. The second project deliverable that we seek to present at CAREB is the first draft of the Minimal Consent. After conducting a gap analysis and discussing it in various fora, the team proceeded to identify, from a participant’s point of view, what requirements are necessary to help making a decision regarding the active participation on a research. Elements incidental to the protection of the participant were left out from the draft consent template and now are part of its companion, the research package. After incorporating CAREB’s input we will have a new meeting of the Advisory Committee and a series of consultations with patients and their representatives and other stakeholders. We expect to have a pre-final draft uploaded for public consultation later this year. After reflecting on all input, we intend to submit the template for publication by early 2025.
    Sessions

PDF Copy of Agenda

Coming Soon!