Clairmont Sarah, Doerksen Emily, Gunay Alize Ece, Friesen Phoebe
Researcher and PhD candidate in the Department of Philosophy at McGill University.
Researcher and recent graduate from the Department of Human Genetics and the Department of Equity, Ethics, and Policy at McGill University.
Ethics Hum Res. 2025 Jan-Feb;47(1):2-19. doi: 10.1002/eahr.60004.
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.
本文从哲学角度探讨了加拿大研究伦理治理在实践和组织过程中所面临的问题。构成研究监督的流程和程序旨在确保研究的伦理行为，它们基于关于伦理研究的内涵以及哪些流程能够确保研究伦理行为的观念或信念。这些观念和信念构成了加拿大研究伦理治理体系的认知基础，但我们认为，社区成员为填补该体系漏洞所做的大量努力表明这些观念可能存在缺陷。我们的目标是通过批判性分析来揭示这些缺陷，简要介绍关于认知不公正和无知的哲学文献，并利用这些文献和实证证据来审视不公正和无知在研究伦理治理的三个层面（研究伦理委员会、法规和培训）中是如何体现的。在进行这种批判之后，借鉴同一哲学传统的见解，我们强调了加拿大各地社区为重新书写和重塑作为认知抵抗场所的研究伦理实践所做的工作。
