r a c agenda september 17 - university of the fraser valley · agenda | 2015 september 17 ... yvon...

2015 09 17 RAC ‐ Agenda PAGE 1 OF 1 http://www.ufv.ca/research/committees/research-advisory-council-rac/

RESEARCH ADVISORY COUNCIL

AGENDA | 2015 September 17

2:00 – 3:30 p.m. Room A225

Call to Order and Introductions

1. Approvals

1.1 Agenda

1.2 Minutes 2015 March 12 and 2015 May 07 *

2. Business 3.1 New Policy on Ethical and Legal Conflicts for Researcher Confidentiality * The HREB is drafting a new policy and is consulting with the RAC. 3.2 Research Initiatives Subcommittee * ACTION from May 2015: Prioritize the Research Initiatives List 3.3 Research Lectures ACTION from March 2015: Research lectures are on hold. The RAC is to decide if they should continue, and if so, discuss potential models to improve attendance. 3.4 URE Awards (Undergraduate Research Excellence Awards) * How do we encourage nominations from underrepresented departments?

3. Reports – as available

3.1 Research Office – Brad Whittaker 3.2 Teaching & Learning Advisory Committee – Lesley Jessiman 3.3 Human Research Ethics Board – Andrea Hughes 3.4 Senate Research Committee – Margaret Coombes 3.5 Research Centres 3.6 Library Advisory Committee

4. Review of Action Items

5. Information Items RAC Roundtable – time permitting

Be prepared to share department, faculty and student research related activities and achievements!

6. Adjournment

Next Meeting: November 12, 2015 – 2:00 p.m., ROOM A225 *Attachments

RAC Minutes 2015 03 12 TBA PAGE 1 OF 3

Research Advisory Council

RAC Minutes – TBA

March 12, 2015 | 2:00 – 3:30 p.m. | Room A225

Present:

Call to Order and Introductions

1. Approvals 1.1 Agenda

MOTION: That the agenda for March 12, 2015 be approved as presented. Michelle/James ‐ CARRIED

1.2 Minutes MOTION: That the minutes of January 14, 2015 be approved as circulated. Christine/Leslie – CARRIED 2. Reports

2.1 Research Office – Brad Whittaker

RO/SA course release decisions have been made and faculty have been notified.

Yvon Dandurand presented a Research Lecture on March 4 – only about 30 people attended.

17 faculty presented MicroLectures on March 10

Publication Celebration included 104 publications from 39 authors.

Call for Research Assistants – deadline to apply to Career Centre is March 15.

Student Research Day is Wednesday, April 8. Faculty mentors and judges are needed ‐ contact Linda Dahl.

Canadian Council on Animal Care site visit took place on Feb 17.

Tri Council – results of grant applications expected late March to mid‐April.

NSERC Undergraduate Student Research Awards – UFV has a quota of 6.

CIHR application was successful – Adrienne Chan is the Principal Investigator, with Aboriginal Health and Fraser Health Authority as co‐applicants.

Undergraduate Research Excellence Awards – nomination deadline is May 1.

Workshop ‐ Publishing Your Article – Tuesday, April 14, 10‐12 in A225.

Canadian Association of Research Administrators (CARA) conference will be held in May. Let Brad know if you have questions for federal grant agency representatives or research administrators.

Jan Lashbrook Green p Christine Slavik p Alan Cameron P Scott Sheffield

Seonaigh MacPherson Bosu Seo Derek Harnett Olav Lian

David Milobar Heather McAlpine Gabriela Pechlaner Annette Vogt

Raymond Leung Gayle Ramsden p Margaret Coombes‐Chair p Adrienne Chan

Noham Weinberg Joanne Nelmes Awneet Sivia Parjod Sharifi

p Michelle Riedlinger Dan Harris Heather Davis Fisch p Brad Whittaker

p Brenda Philip p Satwinder Bains p Davida Kidd Judy Larsen

P Hayli Millar Ben Vanderlei p Fiona Macdonald p Emilio Landolfi

Irwin Cohen p Edward Akuffo Maureen Wideman p Yvette Fairweather

p James Bedard p Lesley Jessiman p Lucy Lee p Lucy Lee

Elizabeth Dow p Deborah Block

RAC Agenda of 49


2.2 Human Research Ethics Board

MSW applications were reviewed.

TCPS 2 – some minor clarification changes were made.

Canadian Association of Research Ethics Boards (CAREB) conference Apr 30‐May 2.

2.3 Senate Research Committee

REA has forwarded their recommendation to SAHC.

SRC REA review committee is suggesting the process for re‐nominating in subsequent years be simplified.

2.4 Research Centres

CICS – Satwinder reported on a project developing a course pack for K‐12 social studies commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Komagata Maru.

“That Land beyond the Waves” play is being published.

Two projects are underway: Sawmill Workers project for the Royal BC Museum and a study on women – folk dance and music.

CICS will proceed with plans to become an Institute as per policy 211.

2.5 Library Advisory Committee

Brenda reported that US exchange rates hit the library hard and some databases and journals may be cancelled.

Institutional repository – the Library will send out more information on procedures as they are developed.

2.6 Teaching & Learning Advisory Committee (Michelle Riedlinger)

Michelle reported on PD day – Monday April 27 ‐ interdisciplinary connections and collaborative relations. It will include a keynote speaker, showcase of examples, sessions on interdisciplinary projects and programs, student posters, free wine, and ‘how to’ collaborate across disciplines.

Volunteers are being sought to help facilitate sessions. Margaret, Michelle, and Satwinder volunteered – others are encouraged to volunteer by contacting Ruby Ord in ETS.

3. Business

3.1 Student Research Day – April 8

Encourage your students to participate.

Work with students one‐on‐one to provide presentation tips and practice their 3‐minute MicroLecture.

Volunteer to judge the poster presentation. [email protected] is the Research Office contract for this event.

3.2 RAC and Vision 2025 The 2025 Reading List is at http://libguides.ufv.ca/ufv2025readings. Adrienne has sent some readings regarding research and teaching. Other readings may be suggested.

Adrienne would like to submit some ideas such as the value of undergraduate research. Discussion on additional suggestions took place. RAC members are encouraged to submit directly to Vision 2025. Adrienne will present at an upcoming Vision 2025 meeting. Some of the ideas generated:

less generalists and more specialists with interdisciplinary coursework

RAC Agenda of 49


What is the role of research in 2025?

What would you like research to look like in 2025?

What are future employers are looking for? Creative problem solving, team workers, collaboration, critical thinking skills.

What kind of culture do we want to develop for 2025?

We are known for a strong undergrad research culture. We should foster and brand this.

“Best undergrad education” requires faculty researchers to mentor students.

We need to build university relationships with our communities, industry and business.

General Studies could be renamed Interdisciplinary Studies with a focus that will allow students to take courses from mixed disciplines and still be specialists.

More conferences and special presentations at UFV 3.3 Research Initiatives Subcommittee

Lenore has stepped down from RAC due to other commitments.

Adrienne suggested that the list must be considered in the context of the teaching university mandate.

AGENDA: Discussion tabled to the next meeting. 3.4 Research and Scholarly Activity Capture Subcommittee

Scott reported that the subcommittee is moving ahead, gathering stories, data and information. ACTION: RAC is to send Michelle any research related stories.

3.5 MicroLecture & Research Lecture Subcommittee Discussion was held on the future of research lectures.

Low attendance in recent years at the Lectures. MicroLectures has been better.

Cost of staff time to prepare for the lectures is high.

Best attendance is when community is engaged (e.g. Lenore’s panel)

RAC should look at different models – roundtables with different disciplines speaking on a related topic.

UFV has had requests to respond to a current event or disaster ‐ these were well attended and brought in the community.

AGENDA: It was agreed to put a hold on research lectures, to examine a different model, and add a discussion to the RAC agenda for a fall meeting.

4. Information Items

4.1 RAC Roundtable – tabled. 4.2 Edudata (RSADB) has been adjusted so you can enter data as a second author or

researcher.

5. Adjournment – 3:35.

Next Meeting: May 7, 2015 – 2:00 p.m., ROOM A225 – Tentative: only if there are urgent agenda items.

RAC Agenda of 49

RAC Minutes 2015 05 07 ‐ TBA PAGE 1 OF 3

Research Advisory Council

RAC Minutes – TBA

May 7, 2015 | 2:00 – 3:30 p.m. | Room A225

Present:

Call to Order and Introductions QUORUM was not met.

1. Approvals 1.1 Agenda

MOTION: That the agenda for May 7, 2015 be approved as presented. RAC members reviewed the agenda but could not vote due to a lack of quorum.

1.2 Minutes MOTION: That the minutes of March 12, 2015 be approved as circulated. RAC members did not review the past minutes due to a lack of quorum.

2. Reports

2.1 Research Office – Brad Whittaker Reported ‐ 6 students were awarded NSERC Undergraduate Student Research Awards and are

currently working over the summer full time. ‐ Three applications were submitted to the SSHRC Insight grant last fall and Zina Lee

was successful. ‐ Three applications were submitted to the NSERC Discovery Grant competition last

fall and Noham Weinberg was successful. ‐ Research assistants through the work‐study grant program have been awarded. ‐ Student Research Day was a huge success. There were 29 students that presented

in the MicroLectures and over 60 poster presentations. ‐ Adrienne ran a workshop titled “Publishing Your Article” which was well attended.

Brad will be running a grant writing workshop May 12 at 10:00 am. ‐ Brad will be attending the Canadian Association of Research Administrators (CARA)

at the end of May. Let him know if there is anything you would like him to ask of the agencies or other universities.

‐ The Undergraduate Research Excellence Awards hosted by the Research, Engagement, & Graduate Studies office will be on June 1 at the Ramada. One nominated student in each department will received an award of $1000 for research excellence.

Jan Lashbrook Green P Christine Slavik Alan Cameron Scott Sheffield

Seonaigh MacPherson Bosu Seo Derek Harnett Olav Lian

David Milobar P Heather McAlpine Gabriela Pechlaner Annette Vogt

Raymond Leung Gayle Ramsden P Margaret Coombes‐Chair Adrienne Chan

Noham Weinberg Joanne Nelmes Awneet Sivia Parjod Sharifi

P Michelle Riedlinger Dan Harris Heather Davis Fisch P Brad Whittaker

P Brenda Philip Satwinder Bains Davida Kidd P Judy Larsen

Hayli Millar Ben Vanderlei Fiona Macdonald Emilio Landolfi

Irwin Cohen Edward Akuffo Maureen Wideman Deborah Block

P James Bedard P Lesley Jessiman Lucy Lee Lucy Lee

Elizabeth Dow P David Milobar Recorder: P Yvette Fairweather

RAC Agenda of 49


‐ We received the final report from the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) and we are now working to implement the recommendations.

‐ Brad went to the CCAC coordinator’s meeting in Vancouver.

2.2 Human Research Ethics Board – Michelle Reported ‐ A few HREB members attended the Canadian Association of Research Ethics Boards

(CAREB) meeting last week in Vancouver. The Tri‐Council asked all institutions to develop a policy on supporting researchers in legal situations so the HREB has begun discussion on this.

‐ The HREB retreat will be on May 28 and they will be discussing student research, consulting outside members on applications that affect community members, and the above new policy.

‐ Brad mentioned that there is no clear way to deal with student research at other universities either.

‐ Researchers often praise the HREB in their efforts in helping make their research better.

2.3 Senate Research Committee

‐ Scott was re‐elected as Chair. ‐ Discussed the faculty Research Excellence Award. ‐ Showed the RAC Vision 2025 statement and had a lot of support for it.

2.4 Research Centres – no reports.

2.5 Library Advisory Committee – Brenda reported

‐ With budget cuts and the Canadian dollar being low, department allocations are down from last year.

‐ The institutional repository is slowly moving ahead. We are one of seven of the early adopter institutions; there should be something in place by September that is open to the public. If you are interested in submitting something contact Brenda.

2.6 Teaching & Learning Advisory Committee (Michelle Riedlinger)

‐ Judy Larsen is now the chair and Lesley Jessiman will be the new research representative at TLAC.

‐ The PD day was successful. There were 110 people, 8 sessions, and a great keynote speaker. There were also 6 student posters.

‐ The feedback was great and there were many good ideas going to vision 2025. ‐ They are in the process of putting together their vision statement. ‐ There is a Teaching and learning newsletter and if you are interested in contributing

please contact Maureen. ‐ There is a blackboard learning course running for 4 weeks in June with the goal of

participants providing feedback in how to facilitate online learning and course delivery.

‐ The Indigenizing the Curriculum course will be running soon but it is now full. ‐ There are two instructional skills workshops taking place in June and August. ‐ There was talk on making grades consistent within departments but it was taken to

a higher level and not discussed further.

3. Business 3.1 RAC and Vision 2025

RAC Agenda of 49


The RAC reviewed the document again and discussed the vision statements. Some discussion items include:

‐ Students that do research earlier will be more competitive in the job market. ‐ Potentially looking into big data that UFV might have to inform us ‐ Having a way of testing technology before it is rolled out ‐ Vision 2025 includes things we currently do. The document is about maintaining things that we value as well as adding new strategies.

‐ How signing into an online course is different from social media learning. ‐ There is a grey line between scholarly activity and research but it should be clear in the document that scholarly includes research.

‐ Margaret thanked everyone who worked on this and asked everyone to send information to her this week if you want something changed.

Without a quorum the document could not be changed. Margaret will send out the document with the change to include research as a scholarly activity and send out the document via email to vote. It will be submitted by May 30, 2015. 3.2 Research Initiatives Subcommittee

‐ This is the document for RAC to consider for future steps and work plan. It could go to the union or management but we need to prioritize first.

AGENDA: September – Prioritizing the Research Initiatives list. 3.3 Research and Scholarly Activity Capture Subcommittee

‐ The work study student was great but we still have data to collect. A survey could still happen but we need to know what we’re doing with the data first.

4. Information Items

4.1 RAC Roundtable. Members shared numerous research projects and other exciting activities in their

departments as well as special achievements by faculty and students.

5. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm. Next Meeting: September 17, 2015 – 2:00 p.m., ROOM A225

RAC Agenda of 49

MEMO

1

To: Senate Research Committee members

From: Michelle Riedlinger, Human Research Ethics Board Chair

CC: Yvette Fairweather, Officer, Ethics, Grants & Compliance Michael Gaetz, Human Research Ethics Board Vice‐Chair Adrienne Chan, Office of Research, Engagement & Graduate Studies

Date: 11/09/2015

Re: Tri‐Council request for new policy to support researchers facing ethical and legal conflicts

The Tri‐Council supporting Canada’s three federal research agencies – the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) – is encouraging all Canadian higher education institutions to establish a policy to explain how they will “support their researchers in maintaining promises of confidentiality” (TCPS‐2 2014 Article 5.1) where complying with legal obligations that would conflict with those promises. We are requesting initial input from the Senate Research Committee on this issue as we prepare to draft a policy.

UFV’s Human Research Ethics Board (HREB) reviewed a total of 21 above minimal risk protocols (out of 88 total) in 2014‐2015. Many of these protocols could have involved conflict between researchers’ ethical and legal obligations. The HREB currently advises researchers who may experience these conflicts to collect data anonymously and obtain verbal (as opposed to written) consent. However, this is not always possible due to the research design. There may also be circumstances where conflict was not foreseen. The HREB also advises researchers to inform research participants that laws (e.g. those requiring the reporting of children in need of protection or current criminal activities) can require disclosure of information that is obtained in a research context.

UFV’s HREB is aiming to develop new policy to support researchers experiencing ethical and legal conflicts in consultation with Maureen Murphy, UFV’s Legal Counsel, the HREB, the SRC and the Research Advisory Committee (RAC). UFV currently has two policies that inform the HREB, Policy 32 and Policy 54 (attached). We will consult with the RAC at its next meeting.

Supporting documents:

o Tri‐Council policy request o UFV Policy 53: Responsible Conduct of Research and Scholarship o UFV Policy 54: Human Research Ethics o Tri‐ Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS‐2 2014)

Chapter 5

RAC Agenda of 49

Government Gouvernement of Canada du Canada

Interagency Advisory Panel Groupe consultatif interagences et and Secretariat on Research Ethics secrétariat en éthique de la rechercheOttawa, Canada K1A 1H5

Notification of Public Interpretation of Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans

On behalf of Canada’s three federal research agencies – the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) –we would like to bring to your attention a public interpretation of Article 5.1 of the revised 2nd edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans or “TCPS 2 (2014).” The interpretation explains the nature and extent of institutions’ responsibilities to “support their researchers in maintaining promises of confidentiality” where complying with legal obligations would conflict with those promises.

Specifically, the interpretation provides that where there is a conflict between researchers’ ethical and legal obligations, institutions must provide financial and other support for researchers to obtain independent legal advice or ensure that such support is provided. Going forward, the Agencies will apply this interpretation when questions arise regarding an institution’s obligation of support for researchers facing possible challenges to their promises of confidentiality.

Consequently, if your institution is involved with research that may present its researchers with a conflict between their ethical and legal obligations, we encourage the institution to establish a policy (if it does not already have one) that explains how it will fulfill that obligation. The policy should include an explanation of the nature and the scope of the support, a mechanism to determine the level of support in individual cases, the source of funding and any other relevant criteria.

Any questions regarding the interpretation or application of TCPS 2 (2014) should be directed to [email protected].

Sincerely,

Jane Aubin Chief Scientific Officer and Vice-President, Research, Knowledge Translation and Ethics Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Janet Walden Chief Operating Officer Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Christine Trauttmansdorff Executive Director, Corporate Strategy and Performance Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

RAC Agenda of 49

RAC Agenda of 49

Human Research Ethics (54) Page 1 of 19

HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS

NUMBER 54

APPROVAL DATE 05-17-2000

LAST AMENDMENT 05-11-2012

LAST REVIEWED

NEXT REVIEW DATE 05-2017

Approval Authority Senate

Responsible Executive Associate Vice-President, Research, Engagement, and Graduate Studies Related Policies / Legislation Animal Care (51)

Conflict of Interest (142) Responsible Conduct of Research and Scholarship (53)

PURPOSE

The University of the Fraser Valley (UFV) requires and supports the highest ethical standards in conducting research involving human participants to ensure the rights of human participants are respected and protected. Researchers at or associated with UFV are required to follow research ethics protocols to ensure their research protects human participants. Primary institutional responsibility for reviewing research involving humans at UFV rests with the UFV Human Research Ethics Board (HREB) and individually with the researchers themselves. This Policy applies to all faculty members, staff, students, and all other research personnel associated with UFV. This policy is in compliance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2010). The policies on conflict of interest and responsible conduct of research and scholarship are also applicable.

DEFINITIONS In this policy, the following definitions apply: 1.1 Research:

Research involves systematic investigation to establish facts, principles, or generalizable knowledge 1.2 Researcher:

A researcher is defined as any person associated with UFV who undertakes to conduct research as defined above. This includes faculty, staff, and students, as well as any individuals from the community who are associated with a UFV generated research project.

1.3 Research Participants:

Human research participants are living individuals or groups of living individuals about whom a scholar conducting research obtains (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual or group, or (2) identifiable private information.

POLICY All research that involves living human participants requires review and approval by a Human Research Ethics Board (HREB) or designated department research ethics committee (DREC) in accordance with this policy and the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2nd Edition (TCPS 2) ‘Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans’, before the research is started.

RAC Agenda of 49


UFV expects all researchers to adhere to the principles described herein. The following core principles are outlined in the Tri Council Policy Statement (TCPS, 2010). These are principles that UFV will follow. The three core principles are: respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice.

x Respect for persons refers to the recognition of the intrinsic value of human beings and the respect and consideration due to them as human participants. Autonomy is a consideration when considering respects for persons,

x Concern for welfare takes into the account the quality of the person’s experiences. This includes

the impact on their physical, mental, spiritual health, and their physical, economic and social circumstances.

x Justice refers to fairness and equitable treatment. No specific populations should be burdened

as specific recipients of the harms in research, or denied the benefits of research or research knowledge.

REGULATIONS

SECTION 1 – ETHICS REVIEW A. Research Requiring Ethical Review

Article 1.1

a. All research that involves living human participants requires review and approval by a Human Research Ethics Board (HREB) in accordance with this policy and the Tri-Council Policy Statement ‘Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans’, before the research is started, except as stipulated below. A researcher is any faculty, student or community member employed directly by, or otherwise affiliated with, UFV who undertakes to conduct research. It also includes anyone who enlists UFV faculty, staff, students or departments as participants. The onus is on the researcher to clarify whether or not their research is subject to UFV HREB review.

b. Research involving humans includes the use of human remains, cadavers, tissues, biological

fluids, embryos, or fetuses and shall be reviewed by the HREB c. Research involving the files or case data of human individuals, where there is identifying

information attached to those files or case data shall be reviewed by the HREB. d. Exceptions:

Research about a living individual involved in the public arena, or about an artist, based exclusively on publicly available information, documents, records, works, performances, archival materials or third-party interviews, is not required to undergo ethics review. Such research only requires ethics review if the subject is approached directly for interviews or for access to private papers, and then only to ensure that such approaches are conducted according to professional protocols and to Article 2.1 and 2.2 of the Tri-Council Policy. Research that does not present any ethical issues, or is making use of data obtained from pre-existing or archival data-bases that are in the public domain with no identifying information

RAC Agenda of 49


being used is exempt from review.

Public information or databases with identifying information usually requires only citation of the source to meet appropriate ethical standards.

If the researchers are unsure of the exempt nature of their research, they should review the scope of research requiring ethical review below or contact a member of the Human Research Ethics Board (HREB) for advice.

e. Quality assurance studies, performance reviews or testing within normal educational

requirements should also not be subject to HREB review f. For research involving non-human animal participants, ensuring the application of ethical

principles is the responsibility of the institutional Animal Care Committee (ACC). Researchers should contact this committee when this condition applies.

B. Human Research Ethics Board (HREB)

Ensuring the ethical principles are applied to research involving human participants is the responsibility of the UFV Human Research Ethics Board. The HREB has two primary roles - educative and review. In its educative role, the HREB serves the UFV research community as a consultative body and thus, contributes to education and understanding of research ethics. In its review role, the HREB has the responsibility for independent, multidisciplinary review of the ethics of research to determine whether the research should be permitted to start or to continue. The HREB is considered a delegation of the President’s Office at UFV. The President has the authority to dismiss or appoint HREB members at his or her pleasure. The Board has the authority to approve, reject, propose modifications to, or terminate all proposed or ongoing research involving humans within the institution’s jurisdiction based on the ethical considerations as set forth in the Policy.

B(1) – Authority of the HREB

Article 1.2

a. For research involving human participants, UFV mandates the HREB to approve, reject, propose

modifications to, or terminate any proposed or ongoing research involving human participants which is conducted within, or by members of, the institution, using the considerations set forth in the HREB Terms of Reference .

b. Department Research Ethics Committees (DRECs) will conduct ethics reviews of research that is

carried out by their undergraduate students as part of their course work, as outlined in 1.6c below and the DREC Terms of Reference, and will comply with this policy.

UFV has set criteria for determining which categories of research proposal are suitable for consideration through this means, and established such procedural issues as to who will be responsible for implementing and overseeing the approval mechanisms. As with other levels of review, proper accountability demands appropriate record keeping. Each research proposal and records of the decision will be sent to the Chair of the HREB who will provide a Certificate of Approval. Only the Chair of the HREB has the authority to sign Certificates of Approval. In cases

RAC Agenda of 49


where the Chair is the researcher, the Vice-Chair may be given the authority to sign the Certificate of Approval. In cases where the Chair or Vice-Chair is unavailable in person, but has given approval, a pdf signature may be used. Departmental level review should not be used for research in which an undergraduate student is carrying out research that is part of a faculty member's own research program. Such research should be reviewed by UFV’s regular institutional HREB procedures.

C. Analysis, Balance and Distribution of Harms and Benefits C(1) - Minimal Risk Article 1.6

a. The HREB shall satisfy itself that the design of a research project that poses more than minimal risk is capable of addressing the questions being asked in the research. The minimal risk checklist is used as a guide for researchers.

b. The extent of the review for scholarly standards that is required for biomedical research that does not involve more than minimal risk will vary according to the research being carried out.

c. Research in the humanities and the social sciences which poses, at most, minimal risks shall not normally be required by the HREB to be peer reviewed.

d. Certain types of research, particularly in the social sciences and the humanities, may legitimately have a negative effect on public figures in politics, business, labour, the arts or other walks of life, or on organizations. Such research should not be blocked through the use of harms/benefits analysis or because of the potentially negative nature of the findings. The safeguard for those in the public arena is through public debate and discourse and, in extremis, through action in the courts for libel.

In evaluating the merit and the scholarly standards of a research proposal, the HREB should be concerned with a global assessment of the degree to which the research might further the understanding of a phenomenon, and not be driven by factors such as personal biases or preferences. HREBs should not reject research proposals because they are controversial, challenge mainstream thought, or offend powerful or vocal interest groups. The primary tests to be used by HREBs should be ethical probity and high scientific and scholarly standards.

D. Review of Procedure

D(1) - Proportionate Approach to Ethics Assessment Article 1.7 a) The HREB utilizes a proportionate approach based on the general principle that the more invasive the research, the greater should be the care in assessing the research.

Potential harms are usually understood in relation to risks, which are defined in terms of the magnitude of harm and the probability of its occurrence. Both potential harms and benefits may span the spectrum from minimal through significant to substantial. A proportionate approach to ethics review thus starts with an assessment, primarily from the viewpoint of the potential participants, of the character, magnitude and probability of potential harms inherent

RAC Agenda of 49


in the research. The concept of minimum risk provides a foundation for proportionate review. The standard of minimal risk is commonly defined as follows:

If potential participants can reasonably be expected to regard the probability and magnitude of possible harms implied by participation in the research to be no greater than those encountered by the subject in those aspects of his or her everyday life that relate to the research then the research can be regarded as within the range of minimal risk.

Above the threshold of minimal risk, the research warrants a higher degree of scrutiny and greater provision for the protection of the interests of prospective participants. There is a similar threshold regarding undue or excessive offers of benefit. As an offer of payment in relation to research participation exceeds the normal range of benefits open to the research subject, it is increasingly likely to amount to an undue incentive for participation.

All levels of ethical reviews of research must meet the requirements of this policy and of the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.

D1.1 Course-Based Research

Researchers may wish to use the research ethics checklist to assist them in determining if their research is of minimal risk.

b. For a course that involves research, research methods or some aspect of research for the

primary purpose of teaching and is of minimal risk, the instructor may request a designation of the course as a HREB approved course by applying to the HREB for ethical approval, assuming no substantial changes to the assignments are made. Substantial changes would include those that may affect the status of minimum risk, change the involvement of participants, or change the methodology / research design impacting participants.

These types of research assignments are instructor-led, assigned to the whole class, and have uniformity in the assignment. If changes are made then the revisions must be sent to the chair of the HREB. In the 4th year, a new course application must be submitted.

c. For a course that involves research, research methods or some aspect of research for the primary purpose of conducting research and is of minimal risk, student-led, and, significantly different and varied within the class, students will submit a Request for Ethical Review to the Department Research Ethics Committee (DREC) which will deem whether the research is of minimal risk. If the research is deemed minimal risk, the DREC will review the research. If the research is not minimal risk, the DREC will refer the researcher to the HREB.

d. Research conducted by students for faculty is considered faculty research and must follow the

procedures for faculty. D1.2 Faculty / Graduate Student / Institutional Research

Researchers may wish to use the research ethics checklist to assist them in determining if their research is of minimal risk.

e. Faculty, graduate students and other members of the university who wish to conduct research

must submit a Request for Ethical Review to the HREB. The chair and vice-chair of the HREB will

RAC Agenda of 49


determine the level of review required depending on the assessment of the level of risk - under, equal or beyond minimal risk. If the research is deemed to be of minimal risk, the proposal will have a delegated review, conducted by the chair and vice-chair. In some cases a designate HREB member may be part of a delegated review. If the research is deemed not to be of minimal risk, the request will be sent to the HREB for a full review.

D1.3 Multi-jurisdictional Research

Research involving human participants that may require the involvement of multiple institutions or multiple HREBs includes (but is not limited to):

a. A research project conducted by a team of researchers affiliated with different institutions; b. Several research projects independently conducted by researchers affiliated with different

institutions, with data combined at some point to form one overall research project; c. A research project conducted by a researcher affiliated with one institution, but that involves

collecting data or recruiting participants at different institutions. d. A research project conducted by a researcher who has multiple institutional affiliations. e. A research project conducted by a researcher at one institution that requires limited

collaboration of individuals affiliated with different institutions or organizations. f. A research project that researcher(s) working under the auspices of a Canadian research

institution conduct in another province, territory or country.

An HREB may approve alternative review models for research involving multiple HREBs and/or institutions, in accordance with the Tri Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.

D(2) - Meetings and Attendance Article 1.8 The HREB shall meet regularly to discharge its responsibilities. A schedule of when the HREB will sit to review research proposals will be communicated to the faculty, staff and students of UFV. The HREB and researchers may request informal meetings with each other prior to the formal review process, in order to expedite and facilitate the review process. Such informal meetings cannot, however, substitute for the formal review process. The HREB will hold general meetings, retreats, and educational workshops for members for educational, discussion of issues, or revision of policies. The HREB will also promote and communicate the policy of Human Research Ethics to and provide educational opportunities for the faculty, staff and students at UFV. D(3) - Record Keeping Article 1.9 Minutes of all HREB meetings shall be prepared and maintained by the Research Office on behalf of the HREB. The minutes shall clearly document the attendance at the meeting, HREB's decisions - listing the number of votes for, votes against, abstentions, and absences for all votes cast, providing the reasons for the decisions, and actions taken by the HREB. In order to assist internal and external

RAC Agenda of 49


audits or research monitoring, and to facilitate reconsideration or appeals, the minutes must be accessible to authorized representatives of UFV, researchers and funding agencies. UFV and its HREB shall prepare and maintain adequate documentation of HREB activities, including the following: (1) Copies of all research proposals reviewed, certificates of approval, scientific evaluations, if any, that accompany the proposals, approved sample consent documents, progress reports submitted by investigators, and reports of injuries to participants. (2) Records of continuing review activities. (3) Copies of all correspondence between the HREB and the investigators. (4) A list of HREB members (5) Written procedures for the HREB The records required by this policy shall be retained for at least 3 years, and records relating to research which is conducted shall be retained for at least 3 years after completion of the research. All minutes shall be accessible for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of UFV, researchers, sponsors, funding agencies, Government ministries, or departments at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner. D(4) - Decision-making Article 1.10 In a timely manner, HREBs shall meet face-to-face on a regular basis to review proposed research that is not delegated to expedited review. HREB review shall be based upon fully detailed research proposals or, where applicable, progress reports. The HREB shall function impartially, provide a fair hearing to those involved and provide reasoned and appropriately documented opinions and decisions. The HREB shall accommodate reasonable requests from researchers to participate in discussions about their proposals, but researchers shall not be present when the HREB is making its decision. When an HREB is considering a negative decision, it shall provide the researcher with all the reasons for doing so and give the researcher an opportunity to reply before making a final decision. Final decisions in the full review of projects that are based on a majority quorum will be adopted only if the members attending the meeting possess the range and background outlined in the HREB Terms of Reference. The HREB shall notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to:

- approve the proposed research activity as submitted; or - require minor modifications to the proposed research activity. The resubmitted proposal

would be reviewed by the chair and vice-chair of the HREB; or - require significant modifications or additional information or major revisions. The

resubmitted proposal would be reviewed by the HREB, or. - disapprove of the proposed research activity.

A subcommittee consisting of the chair and vice-chair of the HREB will conduct the expedited review and will follow the same format as the full HREB in recording minutes and communicating results.

The HREB is responsible for the ethics of all research involving humans carried out within UFV and thus, must maintain surveillance over decisions made on its behalf, including those conducted by

RAC Agenda of 49


Department Ethics Review Committees and those conducted through an expedited review process. Each committee will record minutes of its meetings including decisions / recommendations made and will send a copy of these minutes and a copy of each request for ethical review that the committee reviews to the HREB. With respect to expedited reviews made by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the HREB, the Chair will send a copy of the minutes and decisions / recommendations made to the HREB. D(5) - Reconsideration Article 1.11 Researchers have the right to request, and the HREB has an obligation to provide in a timely manner, reconsideration of decisions affecting a research project. Article 1.11, together with Article 1.1o, obligates HREBs to be guided by principles of natural and procedural justice in their decision-making. Such principles include providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard, an explanation of the reasons for opinions or decisions, and the opportunity for rebuttal, fair and impartial judgment, and reasoned and written grounds for the decisions. The researcher may seek advice from the Office of Research Services and Industry Liaison for assistance in preparing a request for ethical review. D(6) - Appeals Article 1.12

a. In cases when researchers and HREBs cannot reach agreement through discussion and reconsideration, UFV will permit review of a HREB decision by the UFV Research Ethics Appeal Board (REAB), whose membership and procedures meet the requirements of this Policy and the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. The researcher and HREB must have fully exhausted the reconsideration process, and the HREB must have issued a final decision before the researcher initiates an appeal.

The REAB will have different membership than the HREB but will be constituted in the same manner and will have the authority for independent decision making. The appeal process through REAB is not a substitute for the HREB. The REAB has the authority to review negative decisions by an HREB. It may approve, reject or request modifications to the research proposal. The decision on behalf of the institution shall be final.

Researchers may request an appeal of the decisions of the HREB must notify the Office of the President who will in turn inform the HREB of the intention to appeal. The decision of the REAB will be conveyed to the President’s Office and the HREB.

E. Conflicts of Interest Article 1.13 If an HREB is reviewing research in which a member of the HREB has a personal interest in the research under review (e.g., as a researcher or as an entrepreneur), conflict of interest principles require that the member not be present when the HREB is discussing or making its decision. The HREB member must disclose actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest. The HREB member may offer evidence to the HREB provided the conflict is fully explained to the HREB, and the proposer of

RAC Agenda of 49


the research has the right to hear the evidence and to offer a rebuttal.

Disclosure of the conflict of interest will comply with UFV’s Conflict of Interest Policy.

F. Review Procedures for Ongoing Research Article 1.14

a. Ongoing research shall be subject to continuing ethics review. The rigor of the review should be in accordance with a proportionate approach to ethics assessment.

b. As part of each research proposal submitted for HREB review, the researcher shall propose to the HREB the continuing review process deemed appropriate for that project.

c. Normally, continuing review should consist of at least the submission of a succinct annual status report (for multi-year research projects) to the HREB. The HREB shall be promptly notified when the project concludes.

Beyond scrutinizing reports, the HREB itself should not normally carry out the continuing ethics review, except in specific cases where the HREB believes that it is best suited to intervene. For research posing significant risks, the HREB should receive reports on the progress of the research project at intervals to be predetermined. These reports should include an assessment of how closely the researcher and the research team have complied with the ethical safeguards initially proposed. In accordance with the principle of proportionate review, research that exposes participants to minimal risk or less requires only a minimal review process. The continuing review of research exceeding the threshold of minimal risk that is referred to in Article 1.14 (b), in addition to annual review (Article 1.14 (c)) might include:

x formal review of the free and informed consent process, x establishment of a safety monitoring committee, x periodic review by a third party of the documents generated by the study, x review of reports of adverse events, x review of patients' charts, or x a random audit of the free and informed consent process.

G. Review of Research in Other Jurisdictions or Countries Article 1.15 Research to be performed outside the jurisdiction or country of the institution which employs the researcher shall undergo prospective ethics review both (a) by the HREB within the researcher's institution; and (b) by the HREB, where such exists, with the legal responsibility and equivalent ethical and procedural safeguards in the country or jurisdiction where the research is to be done. An institution is responsible for the ethical conduct of research undertaken by its faculty, staff or students regardless of the location where the research is conducted. Thus, review of research by that institution's HREB is required in addition to review by any agency having jurisdiction over the site of the research.

RAC Agenda of 49


SECTION 2 – FREE AND INFORMED CONSENT A. Requirement for Free and Informed Consent Article 2.1

a. Research governed by this Policy (see Article 1.1) may begin only if (1) prospective participants, or authorized third parties, have been given the opportunity to give free and informed consent about participation, and (2) their free and informed consent has been given and is maintained throughout their participation in the research. Articles 2.1(c), 2.3 and 2.8 provide exceptions to Article 2.1(a).

b. Evidence of free and informed consent by the subject or authorized third party should ordinarily be obtained in writing. Where written consent is culturally unacceptable, or where there are good reasons for not recording consent in writing, the procedures used to seek free and informed consent shall be documented.

c. The HREB may approve a consent procedure1 which does not include, or which alters, some or all of the elements of informed consent set forth above, or waive the requirement to obtain informed consent, provided that the HREB finds and documents that:

i. The research involves no more than minimal risk to the participants;

ii. The waiver or alteration is unlikely to adversely affect the rights and welfare of the participants;

iii. The research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration;

iv. Whenever possible and appropriate, the participants will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation; and

v. The waivered or altered consent does not involve a therapeutic intervention.

d. In studies including randomization and blinding in clinical trials, neither the research participants nor those responsible for their care know which treatment the participants are receiving before the project commences. Such research is not regarded as a waiver or alteration of the requirements for consent if participants are informed of the probability of being randomly assigned to one arm of the study or another.

B. Voluntariness Article 2.2 Free and informed consent must be voluntarily given, without manipulation, undue influence or coercion. C. Naturalistic Observation Article 2.3 HREB review is normally required for research involving naturalistic observation. However, research involving observation of participants in, for example, political rallies, demonstrations or public meetings should not require HREB review since it can be expected that the participants are seeking public visibility.

RAC Agenda of 49


D. Informing Potential Participants D(1) - General Conditions Article 2.4 Researchers shall provide, to prospective participants or authorized third parties, full and frank disclosure of all information relevant to free and informed consent. Throughout the free and informed consent process, the researcher must ensure that prospective participants are given adequate opportunities to discuss and contemplate their participation. Subject to the exception in Article 2.1(c), at the commencement of the free and informed consent process, researchers or their qualified designated representatives shall provide prospective participants with the following:

a. Information that the individual is being invited to participate in a research project;

b. A comprehensible statement of the research purpose, the identity of the researcher, the expected duration and nature of participation, and a description of research procedures;

c. A comprehensible description of reasonably foreseeable harms and benefits that may arise from research participation, as well as the likely consequences of non-action, particularly in research related to treatment, or where invasive methodologies are involved, or where there is a potential for physical or psychological harm;

d. An assurance that prospective participants are free not to participate, have the right to withdraw at any time without prejudice to pre-existing entitlements, and will be given continuing and meaningful opportunities for deciding whether or not to continue to participate; and

e. The possibility of commercialization of research findings, and the presence of any apparent or actual or potential conflict of interest on the part of researchers, their institutions or sponsors.

E. Competence

Article 2.5 Subject to applicable legal requirements, individuals who are not legally competent shall only be asked to become research participants when:

a. the research question can only be addressed using individuals within the identified group(s); and

b. free and informed consent will be sought from their authorized representative(s); and

c. the research does not expose them to more than minimal risks without the potential for direct benefits for them.

Article 2.6 For research involving incompetent individuals, the HREB shall ensure that, as a minimum, the following conditions are met:

a. The researcher shall show how the free and informed consent will be sought from the

RAC Agenda of 49


authorized third party, and how the participants' best interests will be protected.

b. The authorized third party may not be the researcher or any other member of the research team.

c. The continued free and informed consent of an appropriately authorized third party will be required to continue the participation of a legally incompetent subject in research, so long as the subject remains incompetent.

d. When a subject who was entered into a research project through third-party authorization becomes competent during the project, his or her informed consent shall be sought as a condition of continuing participation.

F. Research in Emergency Health Situations Article 2.7 Subject to all applicable legislative and regulatory requirements, research involving emergency health situations shall be conducted only if it addresses the emergency needs of individuals involved, and then only in accordance with criteria established in advance of such research by the HREB. The HREB may allow research that involves health emergencies to be carried out without the free and informed consent of the participant or of his or her authorized third party if ALL of the following apply:

a. A serious threat to the prospective subject requires immediate intervention; and

b. Either no standard efficacious care exists or the research offers a real possibility of direct benefit to the subject in comparison with standard care; and

c. Either the risk of harm is not greater than that involved in standard efficacious care, or it is clearly justified by the direct benefits to the subject; and

d. The prospective subject is unconscious or lacks capacity to understand risks, methods and purposes of the research; and

e. Third-party authorization cannot be secured in sufficient time, despite diligent and documented efforts to do so; and

f. No relevant prior directive by the subject is known to exist.

When a previously incapacitated subject regains capacity, or when an authorized third party is found, free and informed consent shall be sought promptly for continuation in the project and for subsequent examinations or tests related to the study.

G. Adverse Events

Article 2.8

Subject to all applicable legislative and regulatory requirements, researchers shall report any adverse events that occur during the course of conducting research. An adverse event is considered to be any undesirable experience or response that was not expected and not stated in the informed consent and original protocol. This includes anything emotional, psychological or physiological. The faculty investigator or supervisor shall report any injury or adverse event that is experienced by a participant

RAC Agenda of 49


due to the research procedures.

Endnotes 1 Article 2.1(c) was adapted from Protection of Human Participants, U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Title 45; Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46.116(d).[ SECTION 3 – PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

A. Accessing Private Information: Personal Interviews Article 3.1 Subject to the exceptions in Article 1.1(c), researchers who intend to interview a human subject to secure identifiable personal information shall secure HREB approval for the interview procedure used and shall ensure the free and informed consent of the interviewee as required in Article 2.4. As indicated in Article 1.1, HREB approval is not required for access to publicly available information or materials, including archival documents and records of public interviews or performances. B. Accessing Private Information: Surveys, Questionnaires and the Collection of Data Article 3.2 Subject to Article 3.1 above, researchers shall secure HREB approval for obtaining identifiable personal information about participants. Approval for such research shall include such considerations as:

a. The type of data to be collected;

b. The purpose for the which the data will be used;

c. Limits on the use, disclosure and retention of the data;

d. Appropriate safeguards for security and confidentiality;

e. Any modes of observation (e.g., photographs or videos) or access to information (e.g., sound recordings) in the research that allow identification of particular participants;

f. Any anticipated secondary uses of identifiable data from the research;

g. Any anticipated linkage of data gathered in the research with other data about participants, whether those data are contained in public or personal records; and

h. Provisions for confidentiality of data resulting from the research.

C. Secondary Use of Data

Article 3.3 If identifying information is involved, HREB approval shall be sought for secondary uses of data. Researchers may gain access to identifying information if they have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the HREB that:

RAC Agenda of 49


a. Identifying information is essential to the research; and

b. They will take appropriate measures to protect the privacy of the individuals, to ensure the confidentiality of the data, and to minimize harms to participants;

c. Individuals to whom the data refer have not objected to secondary use.

Article 3.4 The HREB may also require that a researcher's access to secondary use of data involving identifying information be dependent on:

a. The informed consent of those who contributed data or of authorized third parties; or

b. An appropriate strategy for informing the participants; or

c. Consultation with representatives of those who contributed data.

Article 3.5 Researchers who wish to contact individuals to whom data refer shall seek the authorization of the HREB prior to contact. D. Data Linkage Article 3.6 The implications of approved data linkage in which research participants may be identifiable shall be approved by the HREB.

SECTION 4 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR RESEARCHERS

Article 4.1 Researchers and HREB members shall disclose actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest to the HREB.

SECTION 5 - INCLUSION IN RESEARCH

Article 5.1

a. Where research is designed to survey a number of living research participants because of their involvement in generic activities (e.g., in many areas of health research or in some social science research such as studies of child poverty or of access to legal clinics) that are not specific to particular identifiable groups, researchers shall not exclude prospective or actual research participants on the basis of such attributes as culture, religion, race, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, sex or age, unless there is a valid reason for doing so.

b. Individuals or groups whose circumstances may make them vulnerable in the context of research should not be inappropriately included or excluded from participation in research on the basis of their circumstances (e.g. individuals who are institutionalized). However,

RAC Agenda of 49


considerations on the basis of vulnerability shall be taken into account.

c. This article is not intended to preclude research focused on a single living individual (such as in a biography) or on a group of individuals who share a specific characteristic (as in a study of an identifiable group of painters who happen to be all of one sex, colour or religion, or of a religious order which is restricted to one sex).

Article 5.2 Women shall not automatically be excluded from research solely on the basis of sex or reproductive capacity. Article 5.3 Subject to the provisions in Articles 2.6 to 2.8, those who are not competent to consent for themselves shall not be automatically excluded from research which is potentially beneficial to them as individuals, or to the group that they represent. Article 5.4

a. Research involving Indigenous, First Nations Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada requires specific

consideration. Researchers and HREBs shall acknowledge the unique status of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada and in the rest of the world. Particular regard is given to the respect for human dignity that research should afford, and the core principles of: respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice.

b. Where research involving Indigenous, First Nations Inuit, and Métis peoples is to be undertaken, the researcher should take into account the following: a requirement desirability for community engagement in the research, respect for Indigenous, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis governing authorities, recognizing diverse interests within communities, respect for community customs and codes of practice.

c. As part of community engagement, researchers shall address and specify in a research agreement the rights and proprietary interest of individuals and communities – to the extent such exist – in human biological materials associated with data to be collected, stored, and used in the course of research.

d. In collaborative research, intellectual property rights should be discussed by researchers, communities, and institutions.

SECTION 6 - CLINICAL TRIALS

A. Phases of Pharmaceutical Research

Article 6.1 Phase 1 non-therapeutic clinical trials shall undergo both stringent review and continuous monitoring by an HREB independent of the clinical trials sponsor.

Article 6.2

In combined Phase I/II clinical trials, researchers and HREBs shall carefully examine the integrity of the free and informed consent process. Where appropriate, the HREB may require an independent monitoring process.

RAC Agenda of 49


Article 6.3 HREBs shall examine the budgets of clinical trials to assure that ethical duties concerning conflict of interest are respected. Article 6.4 The use of placebo controls in clinical trials is generally unacceptable when standard therapies or interventions are available for a particular patient population.

SECTION 7 - HUMAN GENETIC RESEARCH

A. Individuals, Families and Biological Relatives Article 7.1 The genetics researcher shall seek free and informed consent from the individual and report results to that individual if the individual so desires.

B. Privacy, Confidentiality, Loss of Benefits and Other Harms

Article 7.2 The researcher and the HREB shall ensure that the results of genetic testing and genetic counselling records are protected from access by third parties, unless free and informed consent is given by the subject. Family information in databanks shall be coded so as to remove the possibility of identification of participants within the bank itself.

Article 7.3 Researchers and genetic counsellors involving families and groups in genetic research studies shall reveal potential harms to the HREB and outline how such harms will be dealt with as part of the research project.

C. Genetic Counselling

Article 7.4 Genetics researchers and the HREB shall ensure that the research protocol makes provision for access to genetic counselling for the participants, where appropriate.

D. Gene Alteration

Article 7.5 Gene alteration (including "gene therapy") that involves human germline cells or human embryos is not ethically acceptable. Gene alteration for therapeutic purposes and involving human somatic cells may be considered for approval.

RAC Agenda of 49


E. Banking of Genetic Material Article 7.6 Though the banking of genetic material is expected to yield benefits, it may also pose potential harms to individuals, their families and the groups to which they may belong. Accordingly, researchers who propose research involving the banking of genetic material have a duty to satisfy the HREB and prospective research participants that they have addressed the associated ethical issues, including confidentiality, privacy, storage, use of the data and results, withdrawal by the subject, and future contact of participants, families and groups.

G. Commercial Use of Genetic Data Article 7.7 At the outset of a research project, the researcher shall discuss with the HREB and the research subject the possibility and/or probability that the genetic material and the information derived from its use may have potential commercial uses.

SECTION 8 - RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN GAMETES, EMBRYOS OR FETUSES

A. Research Involving Human Gametes

Article 8.1 Researchers shall obtain free and informed consent from the individual whose gametes are to be used in research. Article 8.2

In research, it is not ethical to use ova or sperm that have been obtained through commercial transactions, including exchange for service. Article 8.3 It is not ethically acceptable to create, or intend to create, hybrid individuals by such means as mixing human and animal gametes, or transferring somatic or germ cell nuclei between cells of humans and other species. B. Research Involving Human Embryos Article 8.4 It is not ethically acceptable to create human embryos specifically for research purposes. However, in those cases where human embryos are created for reproductive purposes, and subsequently are no longer required for such purposes, research involving human embryos may be considered to be ethically acceptable, but only if all of the following apply:

a. The ova and sperm from which they were formed are obtained in accordance with Articles 9.1 and 9.2;

RAC Agenda of 49


b. The research does not involve the genetic alteration of human gametes or embryos;

c. Embryos exposed to manipulations not directed specifically to their ongoing normal development will not be transferred for continuing pregnancy; and

d. Research involving human embryos takes place only during the first 14 days after their formation by combination of the gametes.

Article 8.5 It is not ethically acceptable to undertake research that involves ectogenesis, cloning human beings by any means including somatic cell nuclear transfer, formation of animal/human hybrids, or the transfer of embryos between humans and other species.

SECTION 9 - HUMAN TISSUE

A. Free and Informed Consent

Article 9.1 Research proposing the collection and use of human tissues requires ethics review by an HREB. Amongst other things, the researcher shall demonstrate the following to the HREB:

a. That the collection and use of human tissues for research purposes shall be undertaken with the free and informed consent of competent donors;

b. In the case of incompetent donors, free and informed consent shall be by an authorized third party;

c. In the case of deceased donors, free and informed consent shall be expressed in a prior directive or through the exercise of free and informed consent by an authorized third party.

Article 9.2

For the purpose of obtaining free and informed consent, researchers who seek to collect human tissue for research shall, as a minimum, provide potential donors or authorized third parties information about:

a. The purpose of the research;

b. The type and amount of tissue to be taken, as well as the location where the tissue is to be taken;

c. The manner in which tissue will be taken, the safety and invasiveness of acquisition, and the duration and conditions of preservation;

d. The potential uses for the tissue including any commercial uses;

e. The safeguards to protect the individual's privacy and confidentiality;

f. Identifying information attached to specific tissue, and its potential traceability; and

RAC Agenda of 49


g. How the use of the tissue could affect privacy.

B. Previously Collected Tissue Article 9.3

a. When identification is possible, researchers shall seek to obtain free and informed consent from individuals, or from their authorized third parties, for the use of their previously collected tissue. The provisions of article 10.2 also apply here.

b. When collected tissue has been provided by persons who are not individually identifiable (anonymous and anonymized tissue), and when there are no potential harms to them, there is no need to seek donors' permission to use their tissue for research purposes, unless applicable law so requires.

RAC Agenda of 49

Responsible Conduct of Research and Scholarship (53) Page 1 of 6

RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP

NUMBER 53

APPROVAL DATE 01-14-2004

LAST AMENDMENT 05-11-2012

LAST REVIEWED

NEXT REVIEW DATE 05-2017

Approval Authority Senate

Responsible Executive Provost and Vice-President, Academic Related Policies / Legislation Animal Care (51)

Human Research Ethics (54)

PURPOSE

Integrity and accountability in research and scholarship are essential values of the university. The university actively promotes the responsible conduct of research and scholarship. The policy promotes and protects the quality, accuracy, and reliability of research and scholarly activities conducted at the university. It establishes a fair process for addressing allegations of research misconduct.

DEFINITIONS In this policy, the following definitions apply: Misconduct in research refers to, but is not limited to, any breach from the present policy and includes

x Fabrication: Making up data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images.

x Falsification: Manipulating, changing, or omitting data, source material, methodologies or

findings, including graphs and images, without acknowledgement and which results in inaccurate findings or conclusions.

x Destruction of research records: The destruction of one’s own or another’s research data or

records to specifically avoid the detection of wrongdoing or in contravention of the applicable funding agreement, institutional policy and/or laws, regulations and professional or disciplinary standards.

x Plagiarism: Presenting and using another’s published or unpublished work, including theories, concepts, data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images, as one’s own, without appropriate referencing and, if required, without permission.

x Redundant publications: The re-publication of one’s own previously published work or part thereof, or data, in the same or another language, without adequate acknowledgment of the source, or justification.

x Invalid authorship: Inaccurate attribution of authorship, including attribution of authorship to

persons other than those who have contributed sufficiently to take responsibility for the intellectual content, or agreeing to be listed as author to a publication for which one made little or no material contribution.

RAC Agenda of 49


x Inadequate acknowledgement: Failure to appropriately recognize contributions of others in a manner consistent with their respective contributions and authorship policies of relevant publications.

x Mismanagement of Conflict of Interest: Failure to appropriately manage any real, potential or

perceived conflict of interest, in accordance with the university’s policy on conflict of interest.

x Mismanagement of Research Funds: Misappropriating grants and awards funds or providing inaccurate or false information on documentation for expenditures from research funds.

The complainant is the person making an allegation of misconduct in research; the complainant may or may not be directly affected by the alleged misconduct and may be a university administrator.

The respondent is the person accused by the complainant of misconduct in research.

POLICY All members of the university engaged in research and scholarly activities shall strive to follow the best research practices honestly, accountably, openly and fairly in the search for and in the dissemination of knowledge. In addition, researchers shall follow the requirements of applicable institutional policies and professional or disciplinary standards and shall comply with applicable laws and regulations. The university holds all researchers responsible for conducting their research in strict observance of ethical standards and for:

x Using a high level of rigour in proposing and performing research; in recording, analyzing, and interpreting data; and in reporting and publishing data and findings.

x Keeping complete and accurate records of data, methodologies and findings, including graphs and images, in accordance with the applicable funding agreement, institutional policies and/or laws, regulations, and professional or disciplinary standards in a manner that will allow verification or replication of the work by others.

x Referencing and, where applicable, obtaining permission for the use of all published and unpublished work, including data, source material, methodologies, findings, graphs and images.

x Including as authors, with their consent, all those and only those who have materially or conceptually contributed to, and share responsibility for, the contents of the publication or document, in a manner consistent with their respective contributions, and authorship policies of relevant publications.

x Acknowledging, in addition to authors, all contributors and contributions to research, including writers, funders and sponsors.

x Providing true, complete and accurate information in their funding applications and related documents and representing themselves, their research and their accomplishments in a manner consistent with the norms of the relevant field;

x Appropriately managing any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest, in accordance with the University’s policy on conflict of interest, as well as revealing in writing to the University any material financial interest in a company that contracts with the University to undertake research, particularly research involving the company's products.

x Seeking and obtaining approval by the university’s Human Research Ethics Board before engaging in any research involving human participants and then complying fully with the approved research protocols in the performance of the research.

x Seeking and obtaining approval by the university’s Animal Care Committee (ACC) before engaging in any research involving animals and then complying fully with the approved research

RAC Agenda of 49


protocols in the performance of the research.

x Seeking and obtaining approval by the University’s Biosafety Officer or Radiation Safety Officer before engaging in any research involving biohazards or ionizing radiation (respectively) and then complying fully with the approved research protocols in the performance of the research, according to the Health Canada Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines.

x Complying with External Grant regulations as they relate to the operational and financial terms of research grants and/or contracts awarded to the researcher;

x Revealing in writing to sponsors, this and other universities, journals or funding agencies, any material conflict of interest, financial or other, that might influence their decision on whether the individual should be asked to review manuscripts or application, test products or be permitted to undertake work sponsored from outside sources.

Misconduct in research, depending on its severity, is subject to a range of disciplinary measures up to and including dismissal or expulsion. Allegations of misconduct shall be dealt with in a fair, unbiased and timely manner, with due regard to the privacy and confidentiality rights of all parties involved. All parties shall be advised of the procedures available to them and persons against whom allegations of misconduct have been made shall be advised of the allegations against them, and shall be accorded the opportunity to provide a response.

REGULATIONS

Responsibility for Responding to Alleged Misconduct The Provost and Vice-President Academic is responsible for receiving and responding to all allegations of misconduct in research. The Provost and Vice-President Academic may designate another senior academic administrator to whom responsibilities under this policy are delegated. When the Provost and Vice-President Academic is a party to the alleged misconduct, then the President will appoint a senior academic administrator to assume in that instance the role of the Provost and Vice-President Academic under this policy. Allegations of Misconduct All allegations of misconduct in research and information relating to allegations of breaches of the present policy must be made responsibly to and received confidentially by the Provost and Vice-President Academic.

A formal allegation of misconduct in research may be made by any member of the university community, or by any other person. Such an allegation should normally be presented in writing and include all relevant evidence, appropriately documented, and be signed and dated. If an allegation is incomplete or otherwise improperly documented, the Vice-President Academic and Provost may contact the complainant and request additional information.

Anonymous allegations will not normally be considered. However, if compelling evidence of misconduct is received anonymously by the Provost and Vice-President Academic he or she may initiate the investigation process described below, on the basis of this evidence.

Protection of Complainant Measures will be taken, at all stages of the process established by this policy and to the full extent possible, in accordance with the law, to protect from any reprisals individuals making an allegation in good faith or providing information related to an allegation.

RAC Agenda of 49


Privacy The privacy of the complainant(s) and respondent(s) will be protected as far as is possible. Any and all information and records relating to an action under this policy will be handled by the university in compliance with the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Time Lines Although timelines are defined below, circumstances may dictate exceptions which will be granted by the Provost and Vice-President Academic after consultation with the concerned parties. Allegations of misconduct in research should be made as soon as possible after an apparent misconduct has been identified.

Informal Proceedings Instances of alleged misconduct in research may be resolvable through informal proceedings. Informal proceedings shall take place only if both the complainant and the respondent agree, and cannot be required as a first step in dealing with an allegation of misconduct. Such informal proceedings will include appropriate provision for minimizing stresses on the participants and for equalizing power. If the matter is not resolved by informal proceedings, or the complainant or respondent prefers not to engage in such proceedings, the allegation will be dealt with through normal procedures.

Immediate Action Upon receiving a formal allegation of misconduct in research, as justified by the nature of the allegation and the evidence submitted with it, the Provost and Vice-President Academic may decide to take immediate action to suspend some research activities or protect the administration of research funds, including freezing grant accounts and any other reasonable measures. Procedure

1. Upon receipt of an allegation of misconduct in research, the Provost and Vice-President Academic will promptly request in writing an informal meeting with the respondent(s) in order to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. Notice of this meeting shall inform the respondent that an allegation of misconduct has been received and that the purpose of the meeting is to help determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. The notice should include a brief summary of the allegation and inform respondents of their right to be accompanied by a person of their choice in this and any future meetings, hearings or other sessions related to a formal investigation. If a respondent is a member of Faculty Staff Association (FSA), that Association will also be promptly notified.

2. During the informal meeting with the respondent and his/her representative, any and all statements made will be without prejudice and no formal record will be kept of its proceedings.

3. Following the informal meeting with the respondent(s), the Provost and Vice-President Academic will decide whether or not a formal investigation is warranted and so inform the respondent(s) and the complainant(s) in writing, normally within twenty working days of receipt of the allegation. If the FSA was notified, as described in paragraph 1 above, it will be informed of the decision at the same time as the respondent.

4. The Provost and Vice-President Academic may accept an admission of misconduct by the respondent(s), provided that it is made in writing and reflects the facts of the case as revealed by the complainant and understood by the Provost and Vice-President Academic. In such cases, the Provost may immediately proceed to take appropriate action to respond to the allegation that

RAC Agenda of 49


was admitted to by the respondent.

5. When the Provost and Vice-President Academic finds that a formal investigation is warranted, the notice to the respondent(s) shall enclose a full copy of the signed allegation and an invitation to respond to it in writing. If an affected person believes that the decision of the Provost and Vice-President Academic was reached improperly or disagrees with that decision, an appeal or grievance as appropriate may be filed, according to the terms of the appeal or grievance mechanism applicable to that person. If no such mechanism is in place, an appeal may be filed with the President. The President’s decision is final.

6. The Provost and Vice-President Academic shall designate a panel to investigate the allegations promptly, fairly, judiciously and confidentially. The panel will consist of up to three faculty members appointed from a roster of faculty with suitable expertise and experience in conducting research and who are without conflict of interest, whether real or apparent, and at least one external member who has no current affiliation with the university.

7. The procedures to be followed by the panel must be guided by the principle of fairness, applicable to all parties. The respondent(s) and complainant(s) will have adequate opportunity to know any evidence presented by any party and to respond to that evidence if they so choose. The purpose of the investigation shall be fact-finding and formulation of a conclusion as to whether misconduct in research occurred and the responsibility, if any, of the respondent(s). The appropriate criterion for a decision is the presence of clear and convincing evidence. The Panel should communicate its decision and recommendations in writing to the Provost and Vice-President Academic within 35 working days after the start of the investigation. An extension of this time period may be granted by the Provost and Vice-President Academic if justified by the circumstances and the complexity of the investigation. The report of the investigation panel shall include a copy of the allegation signed by the complainant(s), the written response of the respondent(s), if any, the findings and decisions of the panel and its recommendation for any action to be taken

8. After receiving the report of the investigation panel, the Provost and Vice-President Academic shall reach a decision within 10 working days and determine what actions, if any, are to be taken, which may include, but are not limited to, those listed below:

x dismissal of the allegation

x a formal warning

x sanctions against a respondent found to have engaged in misconduct

x actions to protect or restore the reputation of the respondent, if wrongfully accused

x actions to protect a complainant found to have made a responsible accusation

x sanctions against a complainant found to have made an irresponsible or malicious allegation

9. The Provost and Vice-President Academic will communicate its decision in writing, confidentially, to the complainant(s) and respondent(s).

10. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the Provost and Vice-President Academic will produce a final report, with a copy sent confidentially to the complainant(s) and the respondent(s), containing: a summary of the specific allegation(s); the findings and reasons for the findings and recommendations of the investigation panel, the researcher’s response to the allegation(s), investigation and findings, and any measures the researcher has taken to rectify the breach of policy, the decision of the Provost and Vice-President Academic; the outcome of an appeal, if

RAC Agenda of 49


one was made; and the final outcome, including sanctions imposed and/or actions taken by the university. The final report will be submitted to the President.

Sanctions and Other Measures

All sanctions and measures taken as a result of the procedures described above must be proportional to the severity of the misconduct. In the case of employees who are members of the Faculty and Staff Association, disciplinary action will comply with the relevant provisions in the Collective Agreement (Termination and Discipline). In the case of students, the Student Academic Misconduct policy will be applied. If sanctions or actions are components of the decision contained in the final report, the sanctions or actions will be imposed or taken by the Provost and Vice-President Academic unless another person is designated to do so by existing university policy, collective agreement, framework agreement, or by legislation. In such cases, the final report will be transmitted to that other person, as a recommendation for action. Appeals

If a person affected by the misconduct or by the decision of the Provost and Vice-President believes that that decision was reached improperly or disagrees with that decision, an appeal or grievance as appropriate may be filed, according to the terms of the appeal or grievance mechanism applicable to that person. If no such mechanism is in place, an appeal may be filed, within 15 working days of the receipt of the report, with the President or, if appropriate, with the national granting agency which funded the research with respect to which an allegation of misconduct was made. Notifications In cases where the research misconduct involved activities funded in whole or in part by one of the national granting councils or another funding agency, a copy of the final report prepared by the Provost and Vice-President Academic will be transmitted to that council or other funding agency by the Provost and Vice-President Academic. If an allegation is dismissed above or it is otherwise determined to have been unfounded, and a granting council or other funding agency is known to be aware or is likely to be aware of the allegation, the Provost and Vice-President Academic will so inform the council or other funding agency.

When the Provost and Vice-President Academic determines it to be in the best interests of the university, a report on the investigation of misconduct and its outcome will be disseminated to persons with a legitimate interest in knowing about them, such as the research subjects themselves or a co-investigator. This report will normally contain no information that would identify the parties, unless this action is fully consistent with the final outcome of this case as described in the final report.

RAC Agenda of 49

Summary of Research Subcommittee on Direction for Future RAC Initiatives 2015 01 16 Preface: In order to build on the previous progress made at UFV to further the interests of research-active faculty, a subcommittee was struck to consider future improvements to the university's research environment. Overview: The subcommittee agreed on a general principle of working to increase the number of research-active faculty. We identified two areas of future action: the need to prepare faculty to win research funding and the need to ensure they have sufficient time to sustainably complete research work. Blue sky list of possible items: We brainstormed a list of potential items, and some additional items were added by RAC. The items, in no order, are below: 1. That the number of releases in the general pool meet increasing demand.

2. That research releases reflect course weighting differences across the university.

3. That a winner of a major SSHRC/ CIHR / NSERC award or similar grant that does not

allow one to cost in release automatically come with 2 releases per year of the grant.

4. That research activities such as student supervision be recognized as a unit of work and

compensated in some way.

5. That directors of labs, centres, and institutes be compensated.

6. That there be a system of merit pay for excellence in teaching/ research.

7. That the university develop a mechanism for supporting teaching assistants.

8. That workload be reduced to six courses.

9. That additional extra release be given to researchers at the beginning of their career.

10. That use of releases be monitored to ensure they are being used for stated purpose.

Next Steps: At this point, could all members of RAC read over the proposed points, and send any further comments to Lenore Newman, Elizabeth Dow, Olav Lian, and Fiona MacDonald. At the next RAC meeting the subcommittee proposes we discuss next steps.

RAC Agenda of 49

URE Award Tracking Table

Eligible Departments Total / 11 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

Adult Education 2 Y Y

Biology 11 Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Business Admin 10 Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Chemistry 11 Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Child & Youth Care 0

Communications 4 Y Y y Y

Computer Info Systems 5 Y Y Y Y Y

Crim 11 Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Economics 4 Y Y Y Y

Education Studies 0

English 7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Fashion Design 0

Geography 10 Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Health Sciences 1 Y

History 9 Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Indo‐Canadian Studies 8 Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y

Kinesiology 8 Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y

Math / Statistics 4 Y Y Y Y

MOLA 0

Philosophy (+PS til 10) 8 Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Political Science 3 y Y Y

Physics 7 y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Psychology 8 Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y

Social Work 9 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

SCMS ‐ Sociology 11 Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

SCMS – Anth/Media Studie 4 Y y Y Y

Theatre 1 Y

Visual Arts 4 Y Y Y Y

OTHER:

Industry Liaison Award 4 Bio BUS CHEM CHEM

Student Speaker Awards Psyc/BSN Geo / Bio ICS/SCMS KPE/Geo

Total Awards 164 15 19 16 17 18 15 15 11 13 13 n/a 12

Total Students 242 21 26 23 22 26 17 16 21 24 18 28

Total Funds Awarded 174,950$ 16,000 19,750 16,800 17,550 18,000 16,000 15,000 11,500 13,050 13,050 18,250

Year 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

RAC Agenda of 49

Undergraduate Research Excellence Award 2015

PURPOSE: To recognize excellence in research done by undergraduate students at UFV. AMOUNT: Up to $1,000.00 NUMBER OF AWARDS AVAILABLE: 1 per degree discipline / department AVAILABLE TO: A person who has completed a research project while a full‐time UFV student (enrolled in at least 9 credits) during the Summer 2014, Fall 2014, or in the Winter 2015 semester. In the case of a group project, the award may also be presented to a group of students who meet the eligibility criteria and be divided equally among them. However, the award will not be split between students for separate individual projects within a discipline or department. CRITERIA: For excellence in research conducted under the supervision of a UFV faculty member either as part of the UFV work study program, as research assistants, or for an outstanding project as part of a course. NOMINATION AND SELECTION PROCESS:

Department heads / directors inform all faculty (including sessionals) of the award. The department determines a list of criteria that reflect excellence in student research in their particular discipline.

The department establishes a departmental review subcommittee of at least 3 members Faculty prepare nominations and submit them to the departmental review subcommittee.

The subcommittee uses the established criteria to review the nominations and make a recommendation to the department.

The department head / director submits the approved nomination to the AVP Research along with required documentation.

The AVP Research, Engagement & Graduate Studies reviews recommendations and makes the final decision. No appeals will be considered.

IMPORTANT DATES:

Call for nominations and reminders sent out starting: February 20

Deadline for nomination submission from department head / director to the AVP Research & Graduate Studies: May 1

Recipients are approved by: May 8

Recipient publication information must be submitted by: May 22

Awards will be presented at a dinner held at the Ramada Inn: June 1

RAC Agenda of 49

MEMO

To: Department Heads, Directors and Faculty

From: Adrienne Chan, AVP Research, Engagement & Graduate Studies

Date: February 20, 2015

Re: Undergraduate Research Excellence Award 2015

It is time again to nominate your outstanding student for the Undergraduate Research Excellence award. The $1,000 award is to recognize excellence in research done by undergraduate students either as part of the UFV work study program, as research assistants, or for an outstanding project as part of a course. The Research, Engagement & Graduate Studies Office facilitates the awards and hosts a celebration dinner to honour our excellent student researchers and their supervisors. The process outlined below will assist your department in selecting a nominee. Departmental Nomination Process

Make this an agenda item for your next department meeting and ensure all faculty members (including sessionals) are aware of the award.

Determine a list of criteria that reflects excellence in student research for your particular discipline.

Establish a departmental review subcommittee of at least 3 members (this may include a faculty member from another department if appropriate).

Faculty prepare nominations and submit them to the departmental review subcommittee. Nominations should include:

o a memo of support with the rationale for proposing the student for the award o a detailed description or copy of the research paper in which the student was involved.

The subcommittee will use the established criteria to review the nominations and make a recommendation to the department (reviewers should exclude themselves in cases of conflict of interest).

The department head / director will submit the approved nomination to the AVP Research, Engagement & Graduate Studies along with the attached nomination form.

Thank you for your assistance! NOTE: We are also looking for

‐ 1 or 2 dynamic student speakers to present at the dinner on their experience doing research at UFV. Please forward your suggestions to [email protected]

‐ Industry Liaison Award nominees for research involving a student and an industry partner (one award per year not per department).

RAC Agenda of 49

URE Nomination Report Form Department

List of criteria used

Members of the departmental review subcommittee

Date of subcommittee meeting(s)

Number of nominations received / reviewed

List of students nominated:

Student Name Course / Project Faculty Nominator

RAC Agenda of 49

A. Department Nominee Information

Student Name

Student Number

Social Insurance Number

Mailing Address

Phone

Email

Faculty Supervisor

Course / Project

Attach a 1‐2 page summary of the project and/or a copy of the completed project/report, if possible.

Attach a letter of nomination from the faculty or department head, clearly explaining what the student did, why it is an example of excellence for your particular discipline, and what the outcomes are. You may add other information to support the nomination.

B. Award Publication Information – Deadline May 22

After final approval is given by the AVP, we will ask you for the following by MAY 22:

One PowerPoint slide that the student prepares for their project which includes the project title, a picture or graphic, names of the student and instructor. These will be viewed at the

awards dinner. Example slides may be viewed at http://www.ufv.ca/research/students‐‐research/undergrad‐research‐excellence‐award/ For the printed program, we would like 2‐3 sentences about the student, their education plans, future goals, why they chose UFV, how doing research enhanced their learning experience, how they became interested in this project, possible impact of project, presentation at conferences, etc.

And a paragraph that briefly outlines the project (100‐200 words) and the significance of findings.

C. Award Presentation – June 1

A presentation dinner will take place Monday, June 1 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ramada Inn. Recipients, department heads, and nominating faculty will be invited. Award recipients may purchase 1‐2 guest tickets for $40 each (no children please).

If you have any questions about this award or the event please contact [email protected] or 604‐864‐4639.

RAC Agenda of 49

r a c agenda september 17 - university of the fraser valley · agenda | 2015 september 17 ... yvon...

Documents