Perspectives of Canadian Researchers on Ethics Review of Neuroimaging Research

The current and potential uses of neuroimaging in healthcare and beyond have spurred discussion about the ethical issues related to neuroimaging and neuroimaging research. This study examined the perspectives of neuroimagers on ethical issues in their research and on the ethics review process. One hundred neuroimagers from 13 Canadian neuroscience centers completed an online survey and 35 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Neuroimagers felt that most ethical and social issues identified in the literature were dealt with adequately, well, and even very well by research ethics boards (REBs), but some issues such as incidental findings and transfer of knowledge were problematic. Neuroimagers reported a range of practical problems in the ethics review process. We aimed to gather perspectives from REB on the ethics review process, but insufficient participation by REBs prevented us from reporting their perspectives. Given shortcomings identified by neuroimagers as well as longstanding issues in Canadian ethics governance, we believe that substantial challenges exist in Canadian research ethics governance that jeopardize trust, communication, and the overall soundness of research ethics governance. Neuroimagers and REBs should consider their shared responsibilities in developing guidance to handle issues such as incidental findings, risk assessment, and knowledge transfer.

[1]  A. Rosen.  Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) in the Classroom , 2009, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[2]  M. Greicius,et al.  Prospects for Prediction , 2007, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Paul Root Wolpe,et al.  Monitoring and manipulating brain function: new neuroscience technologies and their ethical implications. , 2004, The Hastings Center report.

[4]  I. Wilkinson,et al.  The high incidence and bioethics of findings on magnetic resonance brain imaging of normal volunteers for neuroscience research , 2009, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[5]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[6]  Eric Racine,et al.  Cognitive Enhancement, Lifestyle Choice or Misuse of Prescription Drugs? , 2010 .

[7]  J. Yesavage,et al.  Ethical, and practical issues in applying functional imaging to the clinical management of Alzheimer’s disease , 2002, Brain and Cognition.

[8]  J. Illes,et al.  Neuroethical Responsibilities , 2006, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques.

[9]  B. Sahakian,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics , 2011 .

[10]  Sarah M. Greene,et al.  A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve Institutional Review Board approval. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  M. Bacchetta,et al.  Clinical pragmatism: John Dewey and clinical ethics. , 1996, The Journal of contemporary health law and policy.

[12]  P. Hebert,et al.  Research ethics review: Do it once and do it well , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[13]  J. Illes,et al.  Incidental findings on pediatric MR images of the brain. , 2002, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[14]  R. D'Arcy,et al.  The Therapeutic Misconception: A Threat to Valid Parental Consent for Pediatric Neuroimaging Research , 2008, Accountability in research.

[15]  E. Racine,et al.  Canadian research ethics boards and multisite research: experiences from two minimal-risk studies. , 2010, IRB.

[16]  Judy Illes,et al.  Neurotalk: improving the communication of neuroscience research , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[17]  Judy Illes,et al.  Discovery and disclosure of incidental findings in neuroimaging research , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[18]  C. Senior,et al.  The neuroimaging research process from the participants' perspective. , 2007, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[19]  E. Racine.  Pragmatic Neuroethics: Improving Treatment and Understanding of the Mind-Brain , 2010 .

[20]  J. Downie.  The Canadian Agency for the Oversight of Research Involving Humans: A Reform Proposal , 2006, Accountability in research.

[21]  E. Racine.  Neuroscience and the media: ethical challenges and opportunities , 2011 .

[22]  A. Mamourian.  Incidental findings on research functional MR images: Should we look? , 2004, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[23]  Ann Silversides,et al.  Clinical trials: the muddled Canadian landscape , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[24]  T. Raffin,et al.  Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research , 2004, Neurology.

[25]  M. Cho.  Conflicts of interest in magnetic resonance imaging: issues in clinical practice and research. , 2002, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[26]  Robert J. Volk,et al.  Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System , 2008, International journal of medical sciences.

[27]  Y. Khaliq,et al.  Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans , 2012 .

[28]  J. Illes,et al.  Emerging Ethical Challenges in Advanced Neuroimaging Research: Review, Recommendations and Research Agenda , 2007, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[29]  J. Illes,et al.  Bridging Philosophical and Practical Implications of Incidental Findings in Brain Research , 2008, The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[30]  J. Illes,et al.  Subjects' expectations in neuroimaging research , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[31]  F. Weber,et al.  Incidental findings in magnetic resonance imaging of the brains of healthy young men , 2006, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[32]  Frances P Lawrenz,et al.  Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations , 2008, The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[33]  J. Kulynych,et al.  Legal and ethical issues in neuroimaging research: human subjects protection, medical privacy, and the public communication of research results , 2002, Brain and Cognition.

[34]  A. Hofman,et al.  Incidental findings on brain MRI in the general population. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[35]  J. de Champlain,et al.  Review of a mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging by Canadian research ethics boards , 2006, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[36]  K. Malisza,et al.  A Comprehensive Analysis of MRI Research Risks: In Support of Full Disclosure , 2007, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques.

[37]  S. Watanuki,et al.  A case for multisite studies in critical care. , 2000, Heart & lung : the journal of critical care.

[38]  S. Burris,et al.  U. S. Health Researchers Review Their Ethics Review Boards: A Qualitative Study , 2006, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[39]  J. Illes,et al.  fMRI in the public eye , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[40]  T. Lemmens.  Federal regulation of REB review of clinical trials: a modest but easy step towards an accountable REB review structure in Canada. , 2008, Health law review.

[41]  M. McDonald.  Canadian governance of health research involving human subjects: is anybody minding the store? , 2001, Health law journal.

[42]  M. McDonald,et al.  Evidence-based practice of research ethics review? , 2005, Health law review.

[43]  E. Racine.  Which Naturalism for Bioethics? A Defense of Moderate (Pragmatic) Naturalism , 2008, Bioethics.

[44]  J. Illes,et al.  ELSI Priorities for Brain Imaging , 2006, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.