Minutes
EC17-M3
Minutesof the meeting oftheEthicsCommitteeheldonFriday27 October 2017.
Attendance
Ann Greenwood (Chair), Chris Linton, Richard Taylor ,Sarabjit Mastana (ab), Karen Coopman (ab), Steve Rothberg (ab), Nick Clifford (ab), James Jones (ab), Emily Rousham (ab), Peter Saraga (ab), Hannah Baldwin, Jon Walker, Victoria Haines.
In attendance: Chris Dunbobbin (secretary), Jackie Green.
Apologies:Nick Clifford, James Jones, Sarabjit Mastana, Steve Rothberg, Emily Rousham, Peter Saraga.
17/30Minutes
EC17-M2
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 May2017 were confirmed as a true record.
17/31Matters Arising from the Minutes
EC17-P20
Matters arising from the Minutes were noted.
17/32Membership and Terms of Reference of Ethics Committee
EC17-P21
The membership and terms of reference of Ethics Committee were noted.
17/33Review of Committee Effectiveness
EC17-P22
The effectiveness of Ethics Committee was reviewed. The following points were noted:
i)It was agreed that the Committee was operating very effectively. It was emphasised in this context that the Committee should undertake a strategic role in actively considering significant issues of principle (rather than simplyreceiving and noting information). It was noted further, in relation to committee meetings, that items should be raised under Any Other Business only in exceptional circumstances, as it was often not possible to fully resolve such items, makingit necessary to carry them forward to the next meeting.
ii)It was agreed that in order to help form a plan of Committee business for the rest of the year, the secretary would:
-Seek comments from members of the Committee and senior managers across the University on any perceived gaps in the existing Ethical Policy Framework. Those consulted would be asked to ‘horizon-scan’ – i.e. consider ethical issues that might arise in their area, or in the University more generally, in the future.
-Revisit the benchmarking undertaken as part of the establishment of the Ethical Policy Framework, and consider any further learning from other institutions.
The outcomes of the above would be brought together in a paper for the next meeting. ACTION: Secretary
17/34Risk Management–Ethics Committee Assurance
EC17-P23
The Committee considered a report on assurance relating to the threat to the University’s reputation caused by inappropriate ethical behaviour and/or collaborations with partners that could bring Loughborough into disrepute.
It was agreed that the mitigation of risk in this area would best be achieved in the short-term by the dissemination of the University’s Ethical Policy Framework and a reminder to all colleagues of the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life, noting that the Ethical Policy Framework should be seen as complementary to the Nolan Principles and was, in part, a way of operationalising those principles. ACTION: Richard Taylor to progress and report back to next meeting.
17/35Research and Security Sensitive Material
EC17–P24
The Committee received a report from the Director of Student Services.
The Committee agreed in principle that in order to protect individual investigators and the institution as a whole, the Ethical Checklist should be amended to include a question explicitly addressing issues around accessing security-sensitive material as part of research, in the context of the University’s PREVENT responsibilities. The amendment would need to be finalised in time for the University’s PREVENT return in December 2017, and the Committee would therefore be asked to approve the specific wording electronically before its next meeting. ACTION: Manuel Alonso to circulate the proposed amendment ASAP.
It was agreed further that in order to raise awareness amongst staff and students, a similar approach to that undertaken in relation to health and safety developments, involving the circulation of summaries of cases elsewhere which had a bearing on the University’s activities, would be pursued. ACTION: Secretary to liaise with Neil Budworth,prior to the circulation of relevant case study summariesaround accessing security-sensitive material as part of research.
17/36Review of Ethical Policy Framework
EC17- P25
The Committee considered the findings of a review of the Ethical Policy Framework undertaken by Professor Nick Clifford, to whomthanks were offered. The following points were noted in discussion:
i)It was agreed that the Framework should contain a strong, explicit statement regarding academic freedom in accordance with Statute XXI.
ii)There was scope for the Framework to address conduct for coaching and development, noting that this would recognise that licensed coaches would be expected in the first instance to comply with the code of conduct of their governing body.
iii)Some of the comments referred to issues in old versions of the Framework which had been addressed in previous iterations. ACTION: Secretary to liaise with Martin Ashby to ensure that old versions were deleted.
ACTION: Secretary, with input from Brigette Vale and Jackie Green, to redraft Framework in view of Professor Clifford’s proposals and bring back to Committee for approval.
17/37Process for Approval of Projects with Military Applications, Dual Use Technologies or Security Sensitive Research
EC17-P26
The Committee approved amendments to the process for approving research with military applications, to extend its scope and definition, and make clear in particular its application to non-military research with the potential to be used for military purposes regardless of the funding source. It was noted in discussion that further work was needed in relation to export controls and security sensitive research. ACTION: Richard Taylor to liaise with Sam McGinty in relation to the former, and to reflect further on the latter, and report back to the next meeting.
17/38Research and Related Activity Undertaken at LU Involving Animals or Animal Tissue/Cells
EC17-P27
The Committee noted the outcome of the annual audit of all research activity on campus involving animals or animal tissue cells. The high level checklist had been amended to ensure that any projects involving animals or animal tissue/cells were captured. It was noted in this context that the use of case studies would be helpful in ensuring that investigators understood which activities were covered under this heading.
17/39Code of Practice for Research
EC17-P28
The Committee agreed to recommend to Senate for approvala Code of Practice for Research.
17/40Academic Misconduct
Members of the Committee were invited to offer guidance on the content of a video to be developed by the Doctoral College to advise students on how to avoid academic misconduct. The Committee advised that the video should refer to the University’s regulations on academic misconduct.
It was noted in discussion that the University did not have a code of conduct addressing ethical issues associated with the relationship between supervisors and research students. ACTION: Richard Taylor and secretary to address.
17/41Human Participants Sub Committee
EC17-P29
The Committee received minutes of the meeting on 17 May 2017.
The Committee agreed to extend Sarabjit Mastana’s term as Chair of the Human Participants Sub Committee until the end of the 2017-18 academic year, noting the need to consider succession-planning in relation to this role.
17/42Valedictory
Thanks were offered to Brigette Vale for her contribution as secretary to the Committee.
17/43Any Other Business
i)The Committee considered an issue around defining “unethical uses” in relation to buildings on LUSEP developed on a long ground lease, where the University did not have direct control over occupancy. It was agreed that such leases should contain wording to the effect that occupiers would be expected to comply with the University’s reasonable expectations as regards ethical usage, as set out in its Ethical Policy Framework.
ii)The Committee considered a concern around the ability of staff operating the University lecture capture system to selectively but permanently delete sections of a recording (such as confidential conversations at the end of a lecture). It was agreed that the issue here appeared to relate to the technical implementation of the lecture capture policy rather than the ethics of the policy itself, and this would be investigated further. ACTION: Richard Taylor.
iii)The Research Office had been working with the Change Team to enhance the process for applications to the Ethics Approvals (Human Participants) Sub-Committee. A full update would be provided at the next meeting.ACTION: Jackie Green
17/44Dates of Future Meetings
Friday 2 February 2018 10.00am - Jennings Council Chamber 201.1.12 Hazlerigg
Friday 18 May 2018 10.00am - Jennings Council Chamber 201.1.12 Hazlerigg
Author: Chris Dunbobbin
Date: November 2017
© Loughborough University
Legal information | Freedom