Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T01:42:15.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statute-Based Protections for Research Participant Confidentiality: Implications of the US Experience for Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2018

Ted Palys ,
James L. Turk  and
John Lowman
Ted Palys
Affiliation:
School of Criminology Simon Fraser [email protected]
James L. Turk
Affiliation:
Centre for Free Expression Faculty of Communications and Design Ryerson [email protected]
John Lowman
Affiliation:
School of Criminology Simon Fraser [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many types of vital research require protection of communication and information provided confidentially by research participants. In Canada, apart from information collected under the Statistics Act, the only option is a common law balancing test that creates uncertainty insofar as law is made after the fact. This paper explores the option of statute-based protection from the outset. It examines two such protections that have been in place in the United States for decades—revealing their strengths and weaknesses and how they may be applied in the Canadian context.

Résumé

De nombreux types de recherches essentiels nécessitent la protection des communications et des renseignements fournis de manière confidentielle par les participants à la recherche. Au Canada, hormis l’information recueillie en vertu de la Loi sur la statistique, la seule option est un test d’équilibre fondé sur la common law et qui crée une incertitude dans la mesure où la loi se constitue a posteriori. Cet article explore l’option d’une protection fondée en loi dès le départ. Il examine deux de ces protections qui existent aux États-Unis depuis des décennies – révélant leurs forces et leurs faiblesses et la manière dont elles peuvent être appliquées dans le contexte canadien.

Keywords

research ethicsresearch confidentialitystatute-based privilegecertificates of confidentialityprivilegeWigmoreresearch shield lawéthique de la rechercheconfidentialité de la rechercheprotection fondée en loicertificats de confidentialitéprivilègeWigmoreloi sur la protection de la recherche
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , December 2018 , pp. 381 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Government of Canada, 2014). <http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf>

2 Ibid.

3 Palys, Ted and Lowman, John, “Ethical and legal strategies for protecting confidential research information,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 15, no. 1 (2000), 39–80;CrossRefGoogle Scholar “Inquest of Unknown Female,” October 20, 1994. Oral reasons for judgment of the Honourable L. W. Campbell , 91-240-0838, Burnaby, B.C.

4 The Wigmore criteria originally appeared in Wigmore, John Henry, A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Including the Statutes and Judicial Decisions of All Jurisdictions of the United States, England, and Canada (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1905).CrossRefGoogle Scholar They require that: (1) The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed; (2) This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties; (3) The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered; and (4) The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation (italics in the original).

5 Statistics Canada researchers and their participants are protected through a statute-based privilege outlined in the Statistics Act. See especially section 18 at <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-19/FullText.html>

6 See R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263.

7 M. (A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157.

8 R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263

9 See, for example, Jackson, Michael and MacCrimmon, Marilyn, Research Confidentiality and Academic Privilege: A Legal Opinion (Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University, June 7, 1999). <http://www.sfu.ca/∼palys/JackMacOpinion.pdf>Google Scholar

10 Researchers should do this when a disclosure could bring harm to a participant; those criteria within the researcher’s control are relatively easy to address. See Palys and Lowman, “Strategies,” supra note 3.

11 Palys, Ted and MacAlister, David, “Protecting research confidentiality via the Wigmore criteria: Some implications of Parent and Bruckert v The Queen and Luka Rocco Magnotta,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 31, no. 3 (2016): 473–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Peters, Diane, “Quebec researcher in legal fight over research confidentiality,” University Affairs (July 2017). <http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/quebec-researcher-legal-fight-research-confidentiality/>Google Scholar

13 Peters, Diane, “Another case involving research data confidentiality hits the courts,” University Affairs (April 2017). <http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/another-case-involving-research-data-confidentiality-hits-courts/>Google Scholar

14 Ibid.

15 Palys and MacAlister, “Implications,” supra note 11.

16 See Popkin, Samuel, “Interview with Samuel Popkin,” in The price of dissent: testimonies to political repression in America , ed. Schultz, Bud and Schultz, Ruth (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 339–47;Google Scholar Scarce, Richard, “(No) trial (but) tribulations: when courts and ethnography conflict,” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23 (1994): 123–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Palys and MacAlister, “Implications,” supra note 11.

18 Blomley, Nicholas and Davis, Steven, Russel Ogden decision review, (1998). <http://www.sfu.ca/∼palys/ogden.htm>Google Scholar

19 Article 5.1 of TCPS2 states that, “Institutions shall support their researchers in maintaining promises of confidentiality.” See CIHR et al., TCPS2, supra note 1.

20 “Complaint Targets uOttawa for Failure to Defend Confidentiality,” CAUT/ACPPU Bulletin 60, no. 6 (2013). <https://bulletin-archives.caut.ca/bulletin/articles/2013/06/complaint-targets-uottawa-for-failure-to-defend-confidentiality>; see also Palys, Ted and Lowman, John, Protecting Research Confidentiality: What Happens When Law and Ethics Collide (Toronto: Lorimer, 2014).Google Scholar The University of Ottawa eventually agreed to pay half.

21 Peters, “Quebec Researcher,” supra note 13.

22 Peters, “Another case,” supra note 12.

23 Palys and Lowman, “Strategies,” supra note 3; Palys, Ted and Lowman, John, “Protecting research confidentiality: Towards a research-participant shield law,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 21, no. 1 (2006), 163–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 SSHWC, A Briefing Note to PRE Regarding Statute-Based Protections for Research Participant Privacy and Confidentiality, prepared for PRE and the presidents of the granting agencies (2005). <https://www.sfu.ca/∼palys/SSHWC-CCBriefingNote-2005-Final.pdf>>Google Scholar

25 SSHWC, SSHWC Recommendations Regarding Privacy and Confidentiality, prepared for PRE and the presidents of the granting agencies (2008). <http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/archives/policy-politique/reports-rapports/sshwc-ctsh/#Back15>>Google Scholar

26 Responses from the three associations are quoted at some length in Palys and Lowman, Protecting Research Confidentiality, supra note 20.

27 Ivers, Aaren, “Without trust, research is impossible”: Administrative inertia in addressing legal threats to research confidentiality, Unpublished Master’s thesis, SFU School of Criminology (2017). <http://summit.sfu.ca/item/17470>>Google Scholar

28 SSHWC, Briefing note, supra note 24, at p. 6.

29 Adinoff, Bryon, Conley, Robert R., Taylor, Stephan F., and Chezem, Linda L., “Protecting confidentiality in human research,” American Journal of Psychiatry 170 no. 5 (2013), 466–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Ibid.

31 Beskow, Laura M., Check, Devon K., Namey, Emily E., Dame, Lauren A., Lin, Li, Cooper, Alexandra, Weinfurt, Kevin P., and Wolf, Leslie E., “Institutional review boards’ use and understanding of Certificates of Confidentiality,” PLOS One 7, no. 9 (2012), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Wolf, Leslie E., Zandecki, Jola, and Lo, Bernard, “The Certificate of Confidentiality application: A view from the NIH institutes,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 26 no. 1 (2004), 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Reatig, Natalie, “Confidentiality Certificates: A measure of privacy protection,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 1 no. 3 (1979), 1–4 and 12;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Watson, Cheryl Crawford, DOJ Privacy Certificates, Presentation to the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (10 July 2013). <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/ohrp/sachrp/mtgings/2013%20Jul%20Mtg/pptcertificatesofconfidentialitybywatson.pdf> ;+;>Google Scholar Wolf, Leslie E., Patel, Mayank J., Tarver, Brett A. Williams, Austin, Jeffrey L., Dame, Lauren A., and Beskow, Laura M., “Certificates of Confidentiality: Protecting human subject research data in law and practice,” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43 no. 3 (2015), 594–609.Google Scholar

34 Wolf, Leslie E. and Zandecki, Jola, “Sleeping better at night: Investigators’ experiences with Certificates of Confidentiality,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 28 no. 6 (2006), 1–7.Google Scholar

35 Watson, DOJ Privacy Certificates, supra note 33.

36 Cheryl Crawford Watson, JD, has been that one person at NIJ for well over a decade. We thank her for helping us better understand Privacy Certificates and how they are implemented.

37 Wolf and Zandecki, “Sleeping better at night,” supra note 34.

38 Haney-Caron, Emily, Goldstein, Naomi E.S., and DeMatteo, David, “Safe from subpoena: The importance of Certificates of Confidentiality to the viability and ethics of research,” Akron Law Review 48 (2015), 349–82.Google Scholar

39 Wolf, Leslie E., Dame, Lauren A., Patel, Mayank J., Williams, Brett A., Austin, Jeffrey A., and Beskow, Laura M., “Certificates of Confidentiality: Legal counsels’ experiences with and perspectives on legal demands for research data,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7 no. 4 (2012), 1–9, at 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 For example, see Cecil, Joe S. and Wetherington, Gerald T., eds., Court-Ordered Disclosure of Academic Research: A Clash of Values of Science and Law, Special edition of Law and Contemporary Problems 59 no. 3 (1996);Google Scholar Lowman, John and Palys, Ted, “The ethics and law of confidentiality in criminal justice research: A comparison of Canada and the United States,” International Criminal Justice Review 11 no. 1 (2001), 1–33;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Palys and Lowman, Protecting Research Confidentiality, supra note 20.

41 See also Wolf et al., “Protecting data in law and practice,” supra note 33 on this point.

42 People v. Newman, 32 N.Y.2d 379 (1973).

43 See Adinoff et al., “Protecting confidentiality,” supra note 29; Marshall, Mary Faith, Menikoff, Jerry, and Paltrow, Lynn M., “Perinatal substance abuse and human subjects research: Are privacy protections adequate?” Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 9 (2003), 54–59;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Stiles, Paul G. and Petrila, John, “Research and confidentiality: Legal issues and risk management strategies,” Psychology, Public Policy and Law 17 no. 3 (2011), 333–56;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wolf et al., “Protecting data in law and practice,” supra note 33.

44 People v. Still 48 A.D.2d 366 (1975).

45 Adinoff et al., “Protecting confidentiality,” supra note 29.

46 Wolf et al., “Protecting data in law and practice,” supra note 33.

47 Haney-Caron et al., Safe from subpoena, supra note 38.

48 Adinoff et al., “Protecting confidentiality,” supra note 29.

49 Wolf et al., “Protecting data in law and practice,” supra note 33.

50 Adinoff et al., “Protecting confidentiality,” supra note 29 at p. 468.

51 State of North Carolina v. John Trosper Bradley, 179 N.C. App. 551 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).

52 Ibid, at p. 1.

53 Beskow, Laura M., Dame, Lauren, and Costello, E. Jane, “Certificates of confidentiality and compelled disclosure of data,” Science 322 (14 November 2008), 1054–55;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Beskow, Laura M., Dame, Lauren, and Costello, E. Jane, “Response,” Science 323 (6 March 2009), 1289–90.Google Scholar

54 People v. Newman, supra note 42.

55 Haney-Caron et al., “Safe from subpoena,” supra note 38.

56 For example, Ibid.; Stiles and Petrila, “Legal issues,” supra note 43.

57 Beskow et al., Response, supra note 53; Haney-Caron et al., “Safe from subpoena,” supra note 38.

58 Gunn, Patrick P. and Joiner, Scott D., “Certificates should be strengthened,” Science 323 (6 March 2009), 1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Lowman and Palys, “Confidentiality in criminal justice research,” supra note 40; Palys and Lowman, Protecting Research Confidentiality, supra note 20.

60 Jackson and MacCrimmon, Legal Opinion, supra note 9.

61 Adinoff et al., “Protecting confidentiality,” supra note 29; Beskow et al., “Certificates of confidentiality and compelled disclosure,” supra note 53; Beskow et al., “Institutional review boards,” supra note 31; Haney-Caron et al., “Safe from subpoena,” supra note 38; Wolf et al., “Legal counsels’ experiences,” supra note 39.

62 Haney-Caron et al., “Safe from subpoena,” supra note 38.

63 Palys, Ted and Ivers, Aaren, “‘Hope for the Best, Plan for the Worst’: Understanding administrative inertia in developing confidentiality protection policies,” Journal of Empirical Research into Human Research Ethics, in press .Google Scholar

64 Palys, Ted and Lowman, John, “Defending research confidentiality ‘to the extent the law allows’: Lessons from the Boston College subpoenas,” Journal of Academic Ethics 10 no. 4, (2012), 271–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 CIHR et al., TCPS2, supra note 1.

66 Palys, Ted and Lowman, John, “A Belfast Project Autopsy: Who can you trust?” in Qualitative Ethics in Practice, ed. Tolich, Martin (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press, 2015), 109–19.Google Scholar

67 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. See https://humansubjects.nih.gov/coc/faqs#general-info

68 Beskow et al., “Response,” supra note 53; Currie, Peter M., “Balancing privacy protections with efficient research: Institutional review boards and the use of Certificates of Confidentiality,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 27 no. 5 (2005), 7–12.;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wolf and Zandecki, “Sleeping better at night,” supra note 34; Wolf et al., “Protecting data in law and practice,” supra note 33.

69 <https://www.nij.gov/funding/humansubjects/Pages/welcome.aspx>

70 28 CFR Part 22.20(c) states, “The regulations do not apply to information gained regarding future criminal conduct.” See <https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/22.20>.

71 Melton, Gary B., “Certificates of Confidentiality under the Public Health Service Act: Strong protection but not enough,” Violence and Victims 5 no. 1, (1990), 67–71, at 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Currie, “Balancing privacy protections,” supra note 68.

73 Wolf et al., “Protecting data in law and practice,” supra note 33.

74 Beskow et al., “Institutional review boards,” supra note 31.

75 Haney-Caron et al., “Safe from subpoena,” supra note 38, at 358.

76 <https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/S-231/royal-assent>

77 CIHR et al., TCPS2, supra note 1.

78 Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455.

79 Ibid, at para. 44.

80 <http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/interpretations/privacy-privee/>

81 Wolf et al., “Protecting data in law and practice,” supra note 33, at 602.

82 PRE interpretation, supra note 80.

83 Palys and Ivers, “Hope for the Best, Plan for the Worst,” supra note 63.

84 See, for example, Palys and Lowman, Protecting Research Confidentiality, supra note 20.

85 Bruckert, Christine, Wrong case, right decision: Lessons learned at the University of Ottawa, Paper presented at the School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, 2015.Google Scholar

86 Palys, Ted, The cost of free: Implications of contemporary Internet governance for the future of criminological research , Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Western Society of Criminology, Vancouver, BC, 2016. Speaking notes https://www.sfu.ca/∼palys/WSC-2016-TheCostOfFree.pdf>Google Scholar

87 Palys and Lowman, Protecting Research Confidentiality, supra note 20.

88 Palys and MacAlister, “Implications,” supra note 11.

89 Peters, “Another case,” supra note 12.

90 Bruckert, Wrong case, right decision, supra note 85.

91 CIHR et al., TCPS, supra note 1.