Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39749365›Full record

ArticleEthics & human research

(Epistemic) Injustice and Resistance in Canadian Research Ethics Governance.

Sarah Clairmont, Emily Doerksen, Alize Ece Gunay, Phoebe Friesen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics & human research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah ClairmontResearcher and PhD candidate in the Department of Philosophy at McGill University.
Emily DoerksenResearcher and recent graduate from the Department of Human Genetics and the Department of Equity, Ethics, and Policy at McGill University.
Alize Ece GunayMedical student and researcher at the Department of Equity, Ethics, and Policy at McGill University.
Phoebe FriesenAssistant professor in the Department of Equity, Ethics, and Policy, and in the Department of Social Studies of Medicine, at McGill University.

Funding

Institute of Health and Social Policy at McGill UniversitySocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada # 430-2020-00327
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article brings a philosophical perspective to bear on issues of research ethics governance as it is practiced and organized in Canada. Insofar as the processes and procedures that constitute research oversight are meant to ensure the ethical conduct of research, they are based on ideas or beliefs about what ethical research entails and about which processes will ensure the ethical conduct of research. These ideas and beliefs make up an epistemic infrastructure underlying Canada's system of research ethics governance, but, we argue, extensive efforts by community members to fill gaps in that system suggest that these ideas may be deficient. Our aim is to make these deficiencies explicit through critical analysis by briefly introducing the philosophical literature on epistemic injustice and ignorance, and by drawing on this literature and empirical evidence to examine how injustice and ignorance show up across three levels of research ethics governance: research ethics boards, regulations, and training. Following this critique, and drawing on insights from the same philosophical tradition, we highlight the work that communities across Canada have done to rewrite and rework how research ethics as a site of epistemic resistance is practiced.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchSocial JusticeCanadaHumansKnowledgeCanadaepistemic ignoranceepistemic injusticehuman subjects researchresearch ethics boards (REBs)research ethics governance

Identifiers

PMID39749365
PMCPMC11696195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.