Ethical and Legal Strategies for Protecting Confidential Research Information

Canadian Journal of Law and Society

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 39-80

  Palys, Ted ^a   Lowman, John ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 41149110873     PISSN: 08293201     EISSN: 19110227     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0829320100006190     Document Type: Article

References (137)

1. In a 1998 article in the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Bulletin, the Association's monthly newspaper, we requested information about any cases members might know about. See J. Lowman & T. Palys, “When Research Ethics and Law Conflict” CAUT Bulletin ACPPU (June 1998) 6. Not one was forthcoming. If any readers of the current article know of such a case, we would appreciate hearing about it.
2. For commentary on the Ogden case and SFU's reaction to it, see J. Lowman & T. Palys, “A Law Unto Itself?” Simon Fraser News (27 November 1997) 5
3. T. Palys & J. Lowman, “Abandoning ‘the Highest Ethical Standards’: Research Ethics at SFU” The Bulletin (April 1998) 5
4. Lowman & Palys, The Bulletin 2
5. J. Lowman & T. Palys, “The Liability of Ethics” Simon Fraser News (16 July 1998) 5
6. J. Lowman & T. Palys, “Ethics/Law Conflict Revisited” CAUT Bulletin ACPPU (September 1998) 2
7. J. Lowman & T. Palys, The History of Limited Confidentiality at SFU (1998), online: T. Palys Homepage (date accessed: 14 June 2000) [hereinafter The History of Limited Confidentiality at SFU].
8. Ogden v. Simon Fraser University (19 June 1998), Burnaby Registry No.26780 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), online: T. Palys Homepage http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/steinbrg.htm (date accessed: 14 June 2000).
9. British Columbia, Russel Ogden Decision Review: A report to the President of Simon Fraser University (British Columbia: Simon Fraser University, 1998) (Co-chairs: N. Blomley & S. Davis).
10. Ottawa, Department of Supply and Services, 1998, online: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Homepage http://www.sshrc.ca/english/programinfo/policies/Index.htm (date accessed: 14 June 2000) [hereinafter Policy Statement].
11. Russel Ogden Decision Review: A report to the President of Simon Fraser University 6 at i-5.
12. A 1996 volume of Law and Contemporary Problems, 59:3, devoted to court-ordered disclosure of academic research identified about twenty relevant cases out of probably hundreds of thousands of research studies conducted during the thirty year period they refer to. For a description of these cases, see J. Lowman & T. Palys, “Informed Consent, Confidentiality and the Law” (1999), online: T. Palys Homepage http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Conf&Law.html (date accessed: 14 June 2000).
13. See e.g. Dow Chemical v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262, 1274–77 (7th Cir. 1982)
14. Deitchman v. Squibb, 740 F.2d 556 (7th Cir. 1984). In both cases, the courts agreed that any identifying information should be protected.
15. An early example is Richards of Rockford v. Pacific Gas & Elec, 71 F.R.D. 388 (N.D. Cal. 1976).
16. The most recent example is In re: Cusumano & Yqffie [United States v. Microsoft], No. 98–2133 (1st Cir. 1998) [hereinafter Microsoft]. In both cases, the courts agreed that any identifying information should be protected.
17. See M. Brajuha & L. Hallowell, “Legal intrusion and the politics of field work: The impact of the Brajuha case” (1986) 14 Urb. Life 454
18. R. Scarce “(No) Trial (But) Tribulations: When Courts and Ethnography Conflict” (1994) 23:2 J. Contemp. Ethnog. 123. In neither case were promised confidences violated, although Scarce spent 159 days in jail for contempt in order to maintain them. Of course, grand juries do not exist in Canada.
19. See R. Leo, “Trial and Tribulations: Courts, Ethnography, and the Need for an Evidentiary Privilege for Academic Researchers” (1995) 26:1 Amer. Soc. 113. The case is unusual to the extent that the research participants apparently did not object to the researcher testifying; they thought his testimony would help their cause. Given that research participants have the right to waive privilege, law and ethics may not have been in conflict in this instance.
20. For the social sciences generally, see L. Kidder, Research Methods in Social Relations, 4th ed., (New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1981)
21. for our discipline, criminology, see M. Wolfgang, “Criminology: Confidentiality in Criminological Research and Other Ethical Issues:” (1981) 72:1 J. Criminal Law and Criminology 345.
22. See generally P. Nejelski, ed., Social Research in Conflict with Law and Ethics (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1976)
23. R.F. Boruch & J. Cecil, eds., Solutions to Ethical and Legal Problems in Social Research (New York: Academic Press, 1983)
24. J. Cecil & G.T. Wetherington, eds., “Court-Ordered Disclosure of Academic Research: A Clash of Values of Science and Law” (1996) 59:3 Law and Contemporary Problems.
25. Law and Contemporary Problems 6 at 3.2.
26. See e.g. B.L. Berg, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1989)
27. J. Lofland & L.H. Lofland, Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, 3rd ed., (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995)
28. T. Palys, Research Decisions: Qualitative and Quantitative Perspectives, 2nd ed., (Toronto: Harcourt Brace, 1997).
29. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
30. being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter Charter]
31. the Canada Act 1982 6 at i-8.
32. M. Jackson & M. MacCrimmon, Research Confidentiality and Academic Privilege: A Legal Opinion (1999). Commissioned by Simon Fraser University (SFU) Research Ethics Policy Revision Task Force, online: SFU President's Homepage at 16ff (date accessed: 14 June 2000) [hereinafter Jackson & MacCrimmon].
33. The quotation by La Forest J. can be found at R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417 at 429–30 [hereinafter Dyment].
34. R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.R.C. 281 at 293 [hereinafter Plant].
35. R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165 [hereinafter Privacy Act].
36. British Columbia, Report of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, (British Columbia: Queen's Printer, 1999).
37. See e.g. J. Sopinka, S.N. Lederman, & A.W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1992) [hereinafter The Law of Evidence in Canada].
38. R. v. O'Connor [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411 at 517 [hereinafter O'Connor].
39. Jackson & MacCrimmon, 4 S.C.R. 22 at 33.
40. Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5 [hereinafter Evidence Act].
41. R.S.C. 1985, c. S-19 [hereinafter Statistic Act].
42. See e.g. R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 [hereinafter Mills].
43. Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455 at 474–75 [hereinafter Smith].
44. 1 S.C.R., at 477.
45. Smith, 1 S.C.R. 32 at 474.
46. Jacson & MacCrimmon, 1 S.C.R. 22 at 119.
47. R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263 [hereinafter Gruenke].
48. S.C.R., at 303–04. Justices L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier stated: “[0]ther authors express the view that it would be impractical and futile to attempt to force the clergy to testify, because often the cleric would refuse. … Compelling disclosure, or charging a cleric in contempt, it is further argued, places the presiding judge in the position of having either to force the breach of a confidence, or to imprison the cleric, both of which may arguably bring disrepute to the system of justice.”
49. S.C.R. 26 at 631.
50. S.C.R. 31 at 723.
51. J. H. Wigmore, A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Including the Statutes and Judicial Decisions of All Jurisdictions of the United States, England, and Canada (Boston: Little, Brown 1905).
52. A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Including the Statutes and Judicial Decisions of All Jurisdictions of the United States, England, and Canada, at 3185 [italics in original].
53. See B. Daisley, “Clear evidence needed to invoke Wigmore rules” The Lawyer's Weekly (9 December 1994) 28
54. M. Marshall, “When is a secret not a secret?” Cook Duke Cox Newsletter 1992)
55. Jackson & MacCrimmon, Cook Duke Cox Newsletter 22
56. Gruenke, Cook Duke Cox Newsletter 37
57. M.(A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157 [hereinafter Ryan].
58. Lord Eldon, from an 1819 decision in Parkhurst v. Lowten cited by Wigmore, S.C.R. 41 at 3233.
59. P. Jones, A Legal Opinion Regarding Research-Participant Privilege (February 15, 1999) at par. iii
60. as reproduced in J. Lowman & T. Palys, Going the Distance: Lessons for Researchers from Jurisprudence on Privilege, (1999) in App. A, online: T. Palys Homepage (date accessed: 14 June 2000). Jones is legal advisor to CAUT. The opinion was provided at the request of the SFU Faculty Association.
61. Ryan, Going the Distance: Lessons for Researchers from Jurisprudence on Privilege 43 at 173.
62. Going the Distance: Lessons for Researchers from Jurisprudence on Privilege, at 168.
63. Going the Distance: Lessons for Researchers from Jurisprudence on Privilege 6 at 2.6.
64. See The Law of Evidence in Canada, Going the Distance: Lessons for Researchers from Jurisprudence on Privilege 26.
65. Going the Distance: Lessons for Researchers from Jurisprudence on Privilege 6 at 3.2.
66. Atlantic Sugar v. United States, 85 Cust. Ct. 128 (1980) [hereinafter Atlantic Sugar].
67. The case is discussed in M. Traynor “Countering the excessive subpoena for scholarly research” (1996) 59:3 Law & Contemporary Problems 119 at 122, and is all the more provocative because it goes against the grain of many other US court decisions that protect confidentiality. We thank Mr. Traynor for supplying us with a copy of the decision.
68. 59:3 Law & Contemporary Problems 6 at 3.2.
69. Mario Brajuha's participant-observer research on the “sociology of the American restaurant” illustrates the problem. A grand jury subpoenaed Brajuha, and asked to see his field notes. Although Brajuha had guaranteed confidentiality to “many” of his research participants, he had not kept a record of those guarantees. This raised for the court the problem of establishing to whom he had guaranteed confidentiality, and hence identifying which parts of his field notes were privileged. See R. M. O'Neil “A researcher's privilege: Does any hope remain?” in J. Cecil & G.T. Wetherington, 59:3 Law & Contemporary Problems 16 at 41.
70. Wigmore, 59:3 Law & Contemporary Problems 41 at 3211.
71. Scarce, 59:3 Law & Contemporary Problems 13.
72. O'Neil, 59:3 Law & Contemporary Problems 41.
73. See Policy Statement, 59:3 Law & Contemporary Problems 6 at 4.0.
74. See e.g. Kidder, 59:3 Law & Contemporary Problems 15
75. S. Sudman & N. Bradburn, Asking Questions (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1982).
76. Asking Questions 6 at 3.1.
77. Traynor, Asking Questions 51 at 121.
78. In some cases, this information can be gathered after the fact. In Farnsworth v. Proctor & Gamble, 758 F.2d 1545, 1546–47 (11th Cir. 1985) [hereinafter Proctor & Gamble] for example, when the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was subpoenaed to produce information they had gathered regarding toxic shock syndrome (which included sexual histories), the CDC contacted all participants, told them of the subpoena, and asked whether they would consent to their names and data being passed on to Proctor & Gamble. Had they said “yes,” the researcher's ethical problem would be resolved because the participants would have waived privilege. However, in this case, the answer was a resounding “no,” which gave concrete evidence that confidentiality of identity was crucial to participation in the research. The court protected the identity of respondents in that case, even though CDC had not given an express guarantee of confidentiality at the outset.
79. Transcript of Coroner's Inquest re: “Unknown Female” (1 June 1994, Case 91–240–0838) at 33–35.
80. “Unknown Female” 22.
81. Policy Statement, “Unknown Female” 6 at i.7.
82. “Unknown Female” 22 at 114–15.
83. “Unknown Female”.
84. Policy Statement, “Unknown Female” 6 at i-4.
85. See E. C. Wiggins & J. A. McKenna, “Researchers' reactions to compelled disclosure of scientific information” (1996) 59:3 Law and Contemporary Problems 67 at 87.
86. In re R.J.Reynolds, 518 N.Y.S.2d 729 (Sup. Ct 1987).
87. Wiggins & McKenna, N.Y.S. 69 at 69.
88. N.Y.S., at 70,76.
89. N.Y.S., at 69.
90. N.Y.S., at 76.
91. N.Y.S., at 79.
92. See e.g. Proctor & Gamble, N.Y.S. 62.
93. Microsoft, N.Y.S. 12 at 9.
94. B. Crabb, “Judicially compelled disclosure of researchers' data: A judge's view” in Cecil and Wetherington, N.Y.S. 16 at 9.
95. N.Y.S. at 14.
96. See, e.g. Crabb, N.Y.S. 78
97. Wiggins & McKenna, N.Y.S. 69
98. P. M. Fischer, “Science and subpoenas: When do the courts become instruments of manipulation?” in Cecil & Wetherington, N.Y.S. 16 at 159.
99. See Crabb, N.Y.S. 78
100. Wiggins & McKenna, N.Y.S. 69.
101. N.Y.S. 27.
102. A. (L.L.) v. B. (A.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 536.
103. S.C.R. 43.
104. S.C.R. 31.
105. Ryan, S.C.R. 43 at 170.
106. S.C.R. 27 at 431.
107. S.C.R., at 56.
108. S.C.R. 31 at 713.
109. S.C.R., at 73.
110. Ryan, S.C.R. 43 at 179.
111. For discussion of the ethical and legal implications of this, the American Sociological Association's Code of Ethics, see J. Lowman & T. Palys, “Confidentiality and the 1997 ASA Code of Ethics: A Query” Footnotes, (February 1999)
112. J. Iutcovich et al., “Confidentiality and the 1997 ASA Code of Ethics: A Response from COPE” Footnotes (February 1999).
113. Footnotes 6 at i-8.
114. Footnotes, at 2.9.
115. Footnotes, at 10.2.
116. Letter from A-M Monteith to J. Lowman & T. Palys (27 April 2000), online: T. Palys Homepage (date accessed: 14 June 2000) [hereinafter NSERC letter].
117. Footnotes 6 at i-8.
118. See The History of Limited Confidentiality at SFU, Footnotes 3.
119. See T. J. Madden & H. S. Lessin “Statutory approaches to ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of social science research information: The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration experience” in Boruch & Cecil, Footnotes 16 at 248.
120. Footnotes 22.
121. See Footnotes 9 and 16.
122. In 1972, Popkin, a Harvard political scientist, spent eight days in jail for refusing to reveal to a grand jury the identities of the persons he interviewed regarding the Pentagon papers, a secret war study. See J. Caroll & C. Knerr, “Confidentiality of social science research sources and data: The Popkin case” (1973) 6 Polit. Sci. Quart 268.
123. Polit. Sci. Quart 51.
124. Polit. Sci. Quart 13.
125. E. Friedson, “The Legal Protection of Social Research: Criteria for Definition” in Nejelski, Polit. Sci. Quart 16 at 123.
126. See e.g. R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979.
127. See F. Levine & J. M. Kennedy, “Promoting a scholar's privilege: Accelerating the pace” (1999) 24:4 L. & Soc. Inquiry 967.
128. On the history of confidentiality and privacy certificates see Madden & Lessin, L. & Soc. Inquiry 100 at 263
129. R.T. Nelson & T.E. Hedrick, “The Statutory Protection of Confidential Research Data: Synthesis and Evaluation” in R.F. Boruch & J. Cecil, eds., Solutions to Ethical and Legal Problems in Social Research (New York: Academic Press, 1983) 213.
130. §301(d), 42 U.S.C. §241(d).
131. 42 U.S.C. § 3789g
132. People v. Newman, 32 N.Y. 2d 379
133. 298 N.E. 2d 651
134. 345 N.Y.S. 2d 502 (1973)
135. cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1163(1973).
136. See Nelson & Hedrick, U.S. 112 at 213.
137. U.S. 6 at i-8.