Before children can walk, they need to learn to stand. And they’ll likely do this on their own, as part of their natural development. But still, you can’t help but get that warm and fuzzy feeling of parental pride when it finally happens. It’s just so encouraging when they take a small step in the right direction!
And the same might be said about ambitious students. A thesis may be a small step on the road to a future career, and one that everybody who winds up there has had to complete. And it’s likely also a step that these students would have succeeded with regardless, all on their own. But despite this, you still get that same undeserved parent-like pride, as one of their teachers. You’re so happy for their sake!
And now we can add another case to the list. Sweden may have had a naive and rash approach to research ethics for many years. And the commission that is now suggesting significant changes to the Swedish law on ethical review (and this despite their severely restricted mission) thus constitutes a small step in the right direction toward a much saner system for research ethics. That it would go this way was probably an inevitable part of the natural development of things. But despite this, there’s that same undeserved parent-like pride: Swedish research ethics is finally starting to mature, and – who knows? – if it continues this way it might even grow into a proper little fella eventually!
Because we shouldn’t labour under the illusion that the commission’s suggestions solve all the problems of our current system of research ethics. The commission has, in accordance with their mission, done a brilliant job addressing some of the biggest current flaws, including that we demand ethical review for a whole bunch of research that isn’t even close to constituting any real risk to research participants, as well as the requirement that the Ethics Review Appeals Board must prosecute all breaches regardless how trifling. But no matter how welcome all this is, it’s still just a small step in the right direction.
According to Swedish law (both the current one and the one that will enter into force if the government follows the commission’s suggestion for a new law), ethical review is required for, among other things, all research that is “performed using a method that aims to affect the research participant … psychologically”. But this is so vague that it inevitably includes all sorts of research that doesn’t require such additional protective measures. Let’s say I want to investigate the reaction time of research participants to images of happy versus sad faces. This obviously aims to affect them psychologically, but it’s not at all obvious that they’re at any risk that would justify the complicated review application process, to a national centralized body, that both takes an inordinate amount of time to complete and further requires you to wait a long time for a final decision.
So what to do instead? Well, in e.g. Finland and Denmark, essentially all non-clinical research is processed, quickly and flexibly, by one’s own university internal review board (I drool with envy when I see Aarhus University’s application form, which looks like it wouldn’t take more time than a leisurely afternoon to fill out). And in Finland you don’t even need to do that, except under specific conditions, such as if the research participants are subject to “exceptionally powerful stimuli” or “psychological stressors that go beyond the limits of daily life”. It’s nice with clarity.
So let’s really hope that the development doesn’t stop here, and that we’re left with a research ethics equivalent of Oskar from Günter Grass’s novel The Tin Drum: a toddler who refuses to grow up. Instead, let’s celebrate this small but oh so important step in the right direction. Just look at our little Swedish research ethics: well done, you’re such a clever fella!
