糖心Vlog

Concerns over lack of oversight for privately funded research

Controversial study that conducted brainwave training on children in Indigenous areas reveals some troubling truths about Canada鈥檚 research system

Published on
December 10, 2024
Last updated
December 16, 2024
Waves crashing on rocks, over the photographer at Lake Superior Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada to illustrate Concerns over lack of oversight for privately funded research
Source: Don Johnston/PE/Alamy

Ethical concerns over a study on Indigenous children have revealed 鈥渉ugely problematic鈥 holes in Canada鈥檚 research regulation framework and a lack of safety net for participants, it has been claimed.

The Prince Albert School Study, which ran from 2014 to 2016, tested the benefits of 鈥渂rainwave training鈥 on children aged between 12 and 15 and their parents in an area of Saskatchewan populated primarily by Indigenous peoples.

In the trial, students were placed in darkened rooms, sometimes for several hours a day, while listening to sounds generated by their own brainwaves and apparently learning to control them, reported.

The study was run by the Arizona-based Biocybernaut Institute, whose founder, James Hardt, has claimed that brainwave training can make participants cleverer, happier, and better able to overcome trauma. He has also reportedly claimed that it can help people levitate, walk on water and visit angels.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

One of the principal investigators on the study was a professor at First Nations University, who submitted an聽ethics application to the University of Regina, which reviews all ethics applications for First Nations University.聽Regina鈥檚 research ethics board approved the study, while聽another at the University of Calgary allowed researchers to examine data from it.

Udo Schuklenk, Ontario research chair in bioethics at Queen鈥檚 University, told 糖心Vlog聽that the study鈥檚 scientific rationale was highly questionable, and that its use of 鈥渕arketing material鈥 to attract participants had invalidated any informed consent.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

鈥淭he fact that a dodgy research enterprise targeting vulnerable Indigenous people was approved by a properly constituted ethical review committee at Regina at the time raises questions about the extent to which potential research participants can trust that these institutions do their job reliably,鈥 Professor Schuklenk said.

While all publicly funded research is overseen by the federal Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, which can look into allegations of misconduct, has highlighted that the organisation has no responsibility for privately funded research.

Martin Letendre, a research ethicist and president of ethics review services company Veritas, said that this was 鈥渏aw-dropping鈥 in a country where about three-quarters of studies are privately funded.

鈥淲hen things go bad, there鈥檚 absolutely no safety net for research participants,鈥 he said.

鈥淭his is the first example that illustrates that there is no protection for research participants and that the secretariat is not fulfilling its mandate as the research community thought.鈥

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Bryn Williams-Jones, professor of public health at the University of Montreal, agreed that the system of oversight was 鈥渉ugely problematic鈥 and said greater centralisation was needed.

鈥淚t creates a breach in the governance system, it undermines trust, but it also leads to an imbalance because there鈥檚 no longer that check against the natural conflict of interest within institutions,鈥 he told聽THE.

鈥淭his story really scares me because it shows that what we imagined from start to finish being covered isn鈥檛.鈥

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Karen Wallace, the secretariat鈥檚 executive director, said that although it had no role in cases in privately funded research, it expected institutions to 鈥渞espond appropriately鈥.

She also suggested that research subjects with grievances could seek legal redress. But Mr Letendre said that it was 鈥渁bsurd鈥 to think that people could take on universities and private funders in court, particularly when they were from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Chris Yost, Regina鈥檚 vice-president of research, said that review processes had improved since the original approval in 2013.

鈥淚f the same proposal was brought forward today, the review process would be robust, particularly around data collection methods of a private company,鈥 he said.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Calgary said that its involvement was confined to data entry, cleaning, analysis and reporting. 鈥淭he ethics application stated that Calgary researchers would not have any direct contact with research participants and, to our knowledge, none occurred,鈥 a spokesperson said.

Biocybernaut was approached for comment.

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (1)

Ok. Tell us about "oversight" of publicly-funded research? There are more similarities than differences.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT