MarieCo Research Services
1143 East Pender Street
Vancouver, BC Canada

November 8, 2011
Dr. Jeanette Takamura, Dean,
School Of Social Work
1255 Amsterdam Ave
6th Floor Mail. Code: 4600
New York NY 10027

Dear Dr. Takamura:
This letter is to express my concern about the 2010 Capstone Project and the total disregard of Ms Eli Painted Crow’s rights.  It was my understanding that academic institutions of the calibre and prestige of Columbia University would have a rigorous and mandatory ethics review policy in place.  If you do have such a policy in place, why wasn’t if followed in this instance.  Not only did you fail to receive Ms Painted Crows informed consent, the “data” was gleaned from the perspective of a third party, Helen Benedict. 

Veterans, and especially women veterans, have enough to deal with when they return to civilian life without my fellow academics disregarding their rights as human beings.  Most troubling to me is the possibility that your institution is lax on ethics procedures when it comes to minority and or vulnerable populations.  The Tuskegee Experiment is a prime example of where such deviations from ethics policies can lead. 

At the University of British Columbia (UBC) any research conducted by faculty, emeritus faculty, staff, sessional instructors, clinical professors, administrators, students, visiting or adjunct scholars, fellows, paid or unpaid associates and any other person associated with research at the University must be approved by the ethics review board.  The UBC Ethics Policy states:

All research involving human subjects should be conducted ethically in ways that protect individual subjects and respect their dignity and rights. …It is the intention of the University to ensure that, where a human subject is involved in research:
• respect is shown for the dignity of research subjects;
• selection of subjects is fair;
• vulnerable persons are protected against abuse, exploitation and discrimination;
• standards for privacy and confidentiality are observed with respect to access, control and dissemination of personal information;
• the ethics review process is fair and effectively independent of the University’s other academic and administrative decision-making processes;
• foreseeable harms will not outweigh the anticipated benefits;

The 2010 Capstone Project failed ethical standards on several of the points listed above.  Although the people interviewed for Benedict’s books signed releases for the research she was doing, this release did not automatically transfer to anyone who reads the book.  How beneficial is it to “diagnose” and prescribe treatment for a person by seeing them through another person’s eyes.  Research such as this can hardly be called “rigorous”. 

In closing, respect for fellow human beings should be the hallmark of any socially conscious research.  The lack of respect for and the potential harm done to Ms Painted Crow far outweigh any possible benefit this project could claim.  Further, racism in this instance is highly suggested by your actions.  As a researcher and academic of colour, I urge you to apply your ethics review policy equitably.  If you don’t have one, institute one immediately and make it mandatory for all research involving human subjects.

Sincerely,
 
Dr. Victoria Marie, Director (retired)
MarieCo Research Services


CC: Dr. Marion Riedel,
  Professor of Professional Practice,
  School Of Social Work