When the doctoral candidate at Örebro University submitted their application to defend their thesis in 2021, a newly established ethical review board at the university stopped the thesis, which was essentially complete. The board ruled that the research should have undergone ethical review before it was started eight years earlier – unlike the control functions at the university that had previously authorised continuation of the research.
The university reported the research to the Ethics Review Appeals Board (ÖNEP), which in turn filed for prosecution for suspected violation of the Ethical Review Act. The prosecutor subsequently dropped the case on the grounds that no individual had acted negligently in a manner that met the requirement for criminal liability. The prosecutor also pointed out that there had been no formal delegation of ethical responsibility from the entity responsible for research to the supervisors.
As a direct consequence of the thesis being stopped, the doctoral candidate went on sick leave for 11 months. After two years of extra work with new and ethically approved data collection for their thesis, they have now completed their doctorate.
“I have never heard such loud applause at any other defence as that at the end of mine,” they say. “My post-defence party was also fantastic. So much warmth, friendship and support.”
The newly qualified doctor believes that they and their former supervisors were the victims of a structural problem regarding application of the Ethical Review Act at the university and among the research community in general. “Debate about the Ethical Review Act has shown that the problem is structural, not about individual application.”
Due to the different ways the law has been applied in practice, they believe that there are also many other researchers who have collected data in violation of the current Act. They would have liked to see a solution to this problem in the proposed new research ethics legislation that was presented in September 2024.
“There is a lot of uncertainty. Those of us who have been impacted by the Ethical Review Act deserve to know what we are allowed to do with our data.”
Even under the new proposal, the research in question would have been subject to authorisation, as it involves sensitive personal data on young people. However, such a law would have allowed ÖNEP to criticise the research instead of reporting it for prosecution.
