Author: Johan Brännmark, Associate Professor/Senior lecturer, Department of Global Political Studies.
Summer is coming. For me personally, it means not just the end of a semester but also a move to Stockholm University, where I will start a new position on June 1st. One set of assignments that will now end all have to do with research ethics, making this a good time to reflect on this much-discussed topic.
More specifically, I have been the faculty’s representative on the University’s Advisory Board for Research Ethics and a contact person for research ethics at the faculty. But I have also worked as a reviewer for The Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Especially the last year has seen an intense debate about the system for ethical review, culminating with a call for change signed by almost 2.500 researchers, and the Swedish education minster signaling that there will be an overview of the system. Some reflections, mainly from the perspective of having worked with ethical review:
It is often said that the Swedish system is unique, and it is. But mainly in how centralized it is. What is otherwise more common is that ethical review is handled locally at universities. This does not necessarily mean that it is an easier process, but rather that it will vary much more depending on which university one is at. Universities can be bureaucratic too. And there can be idiosyncratic ethics board members there too. One benefit with a centralized system is also that it can make it easier to handle problems with bias and conflicts of interest – locally at a university there will always be personal ties between researchers and a variety of vested interests. This is not to say that the current Swedish system is optimal in how it functions, but it is not wholly without its advantages.
A typical meeting at one of the Authority’s boards for ethical review is at least 4 hours and covers about 25 applications, with one board member preparing the discussion for each application. A system where there was a fast-track procedure for less complicated applications would make life easier both for a lot of researchers and for the reviewers. For many types of research that involve handling limited amounts of sensitive personal data, the relevant issues are mainly about having solid data management and good consent procedures – securing this should not need complicated applications. Somewhat ironically, while applications are often quite long, they can often also be quite skimpy on the details about especially data management. Knowing your university’s data management practices goes a long way in getting an application approved without delay.
Uses of certain types of sensitive data could and probably should be exempt from review. The political opinions of politicians are an especially clear example of this (although what is often missing from the debate is that political opinions have been cause for review for twenty years; this was however just mostly ignored until stronger oversight was added to the system). The Swedish Ethical Review Act requires review for all research that handles sensitive personal data, whereas the GDPR has certain exceptions allowing for the use of sensitive personal data. One of them is when data processing relates to data which have been manifestly made public by the data subject. Some such provision could probably be included in the Ethical Review Act as well. But this could also leave researchers with a tricky gray area to navigate on their own (just when has something manifestly been made public?), so exactly how such an exemption should work needs some thought. But hopefully this will be part of the revisions to the system that are now on the horizon.
Johan Brännmark