Bay Area Science & Engineering Fair Sponsored by The Ontario Trillium Foundation 1 Ethics, Safety and the Law: Developing Awareness, Understanding & Compliance.

Bay Area Science & Engineering Fair Sponsored by The Ontario Trillium Foundation 1

Ethics, Safety and the Law: Developing

Awareness, Understanding &

Compliance

Tom CrawfordBASEF 2003 Judge in Chief

BASEFBASEFBay Area Science and Engineering Fair

http://basef.mcmaster.ca

Sponsored by The Ontario Trillium Foundation


Contents

Background Rules & Reasons Changes Results to Date Why This is Difficult What Works Next Steps


BASEF Background

Regional Science Fair for Hamilton & Halton a 4 day event; rotate among 3 Host sites 43 consecutive years of operation A non-profit charitable association Participation ~ 450 students, 300+ projects Annual Budget $100,000 (60% for awards) Honourary Co-Chairs Mayor Wade, Chairman

Savoline; Title Sponsor; many others


Speaker Experience Active with BASEF Regional Science Fair since 1995 Delegate or Alternate to CWSF 2000, 2003 Chaperone to Team Canada at IISEF 2001, 2002 Involved as judge, Secretary, Chair, Judge-in-Chief BASEF J-in-C has Safety Responsibilities (SRC,

Display) Electrical / automation engineer, Dofasco Inc. Many technical and management assignments Health & Safety is a top priority at Dofasco


Background

RSFs are required to ensure compliance of projects with a number of rules and regulations:– YSF Rules (2001 Policy Manual)– Provincial & National Legislation– Generally accepted standards (Tri-Council Policy)– IISEF Rules

Wanted to get out of the mode of “Backwards Compliance”, and surprises

Wanted to offer an educational opportunity


What Rules?

Human Research (ingestion, psychological risk, physical activities)

Hazardous Materials, Apparatus (chemicals, medicines, lasers, microbiologicals)

Vertebrate animals (inhumane treatment)


Why Bother?

Safety (participants, experimenters, others)

Ethics (risk vs benefit; humane treatment; equality issues)

Law (injury, damage, civil or criminal actions)

Public Relations (participation, sponsorship, volunteers)


Introduce Scientific Review Form Requirements

Year: 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

# of Registered Projects

201 197 181 208 327

# of HS Projects 25 23 23 20 20

IISEF Forms (HS)

-

BASEF Forms ( 7&8)

- - -


How to Implement Changes

1. Document Rules Compliance (Forms)

2. Change in Registration Process3. Initial Review by RSF Judge in

Chief4. Scientific Review (SRC)


HS Registration & SRC Forms

Forms required for ALL HS participants:– BASEF Parent / School Approval and Release Form– Checklist for Adult Sponsor / Safety Assessment Form (Form

1) – Research Plan and Research Plan Attachment (Form 1A) – ISEF Approval Form (Form 1B)

Other forms:– Registered Research Institutional/Industrial Setting Form

( 1C) – Qualified Scientist Form (Form 2) – Designated Supervisor Form (Form 3) – Human Subjects / *Informed Consent Forms (Form 4A / B) – Non-human Vertebrate Animal Form (Form 5) – Human and Animal Tissue Form (Form 6) – Continuation Project (Form 7)


Grades 7 & 8 Forms

BASEF Forms for ALL Grades 7 & 8:– Parent / School Approval and Release Form– Project Abstract

Other forms:– Contribution from a Recognized Institution (YSF1;

App. L) – Designated Supervisor Form (YSF3; App K, Pg 4-12) – Application for Review of Research with Human

Participants (YSF4A; App J, Pg 4-17) – Informed Consent Form (YSF4B; Pg 4-18) – Non-Human Vertebrate Animal Form (YSF5; Pg 4-18)

– Continuation Projects Form (YSF7; Pg 4-4)


Registration Changes

Timing:Before

ExperimentWith

RegistrationIn Notebook

YSF1 --

YSF3

YSF4A

YSF4B --

YSF5

YSF7 --


Initial Review

Timing B4 Fair Activity

4 WeeksNote expected & missing forms.

3 WeeksNote missing forms in Project Acknowledgements.

2 WeeksFollow-up calls & updates.Select projects for SRC review.

1 WeekSRC Review; Recommendations.


Scientific Review Team

A group of adults knowledgeable about regulations concerning experimentation in restricted areas.

not an IRB or school level Ethics Review Committee

Members:– Ethics Consultant; ERB experience– Veterinarian– High School Science Teacher– 2 Elementary School Principals– BASEF Judge in Chief


Scientific Review Process

Inputs:– All Project abstracts, SRC form

expectations– Initial Review results from J in C– Recommended projects to review,

with full SRC paperwork (all animal; HR with risk; microbiologicals, etc.)

– May request material on other projects


Scientific Review Process

Results:– Advice on OK / OK with Warning / Reject

Use email, phone discussions extensively

Judge in Chief communicates exceptions to Teachers, Parents

Generally effective; not a priority for improvement.


Results – High School

2002Expect Final

HR 4 4

Consent (4) (4)

Hazard 8 8

Animal 1 1

Total 13 13 (of 11)

Percent

100%

2003Expect Final

7 6

(1) (1)

1 1

0 --

8 7 (of 7)

100%


HS Rules Progress

After 4 years, is almost routine. Still needs some follow-up calls

on details. Small drop-out rate. Minor differences with YSF Rules

(e.g. drugs). ISEF Rule set is very

prescriptive.


Results – Grades 7 & 8

2002Expect Final

HR 28 18 (of 26)

Consent (12) (8)

Hazard 19 9

Animal 5 4 (of 4)

Total 52 31 (of 49)

Percent

63%

2003Expect Final

69 53

(12) (13)

29 13

3 3

102 69 (of 93)

74%


Grade 7 & 8 Rules Progress

Very promising progress. Teachers becoming comfortable with need and process. Boards getting actively involved.

Quality of documents acceptable; lots of variation.

Hazards very acceptable to professionals; less so to others.

Lack of awareness & understanding of rules still common.


Why This is Difficult

Awareness Understanding Credibility (Are You Serious?)


Awareness

Communicate in many forms:– Post on Website (Rules, etc.)– Articles in Newsletters– Include in Teachers SF Manual– Include in Presentations– Judges Compliments

(Many people don’t read the Rules)


Understanding

Rules & Details New, Complex:– YSF: 2001 Policy– Tri-Council Policy: ~1998

Not an issue in the classroom or with the school board.

Not an issue at home. (Not easy for Me either).


Credibility

What happens if you don’t do it? Current state:

– Phone Calls, emails, notes, “nuisance”

– Opportunity to further communicate Must be prepared for progressive

re-enforcement as part of managing this change.

(This is not fun).


What Works?

Our SRC team and process. Good practical advice. Recognize as change

management, continuous process.

Lots of communications. Support, advice from within

School Boards


Best Advice

Find an Ethics professional. Proportionate Review. Consistent. lots of explanations, discussion;

Know Why. Must be prepared to enforce

rules. Involve School Boards.


Communications

Website (Rules, News) Teachers manuals Newsletters phone calls, emails


Board Support

Science curriculum advisors Research Officers School Ethics Review

Committees– Principal + Teacher(s)– Board Research Officer as

Resource Supportive teachers, Principals


Next Steps

Must communicate rules to teachers and parents far more effectively and proactively, what the rules (really) are, and what we expect of them.

Communicate results of past fair to targets (teachers, parents, students).

find a reward mechanism. Need to clarify our own safety decisions (e.g.

microbiologicals), as we try to manage the beliefs and experiences of our “target audience”.

Less Paper!


More on Rules…

YSF Rules are a good starting point

Some confusing parts, omissions, poor wording…

We clarified, structured, rewrote, and added some rules.

get prescriptive; look to ISEF model.


Is Safety Important?

Bay Area Science & Engineering Fair Sponsored by The Ontario Trillium Foundation 1 Ethics, Safety and the Law: Developing Awareness, Understanding & Compliance.

Documents