COVID FAQ for research activities and processes

For the most up-to-date information, please refer to each agency’s website.

• Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
• Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) 
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
• Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
• Research Continuity Emergency Fund (CRCEF)

SHHRC, NSERC and the FRQ have announced that they will extend the deadline for annual electronic financial reporting from June 30, 2020, to September 30, 2020.

SHHRC and NSERC have announced that academic institutions can automatically approve time extensions for grants ending between February 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, inclusively, in order to allow grantees to continue spending grant funds. This includes grants already in their automatic/additional extension year.

The FRQ has announced that researchers may request an additional year to spend funds already awarded (this includes grants in an additional extension year).

Please submit the grant extension request form to the Office of Research to request an extension.

Program Overview

The Canada Research Continuity Emergency Fund (CRCEF) is a temporary tri-council program established to help the research enterprise at Canadian universities and health research institutions that have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding under this program is specifically provided to support non-governmental sources of research funding.

The program established by the government includes three funding stages. Institutions applied at each stage to receive funding. The first two stages exclusively provided wage support for eligible research personnel.

Stage 1 and 2 formula

For each institution, the distribution is prorated and based on:

• the CAUBO research income report;
• the annual average over three years (2015-16 to 2017-18) of the total of research income from all non-governmental sources;
• scaled to a period of 12 weeks (12/52); and
• assumes that 60% of funding is allocated on average to personnel costs (60% of total).

The third stage will support incurred costs associated with maintenance and ramp-up of research activities. For all stages, institutions had to demonstrate the need for the emergency funds.

Stage 3 formula

For each institution, the distribution is prorated and based on:

• the CAUBO total research income data, or data on total research income provided by universities and non-affiliated health research institutions not included in the CAUBO dataset; and
• the annual average over three years (2015-16 to 2017-18) for the total research income from all sources.

Program Objectives:

• For Stages 1, 2 and 4: provide wage support as universities are ineligible to receive the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS),
• For Stage 3: address extraordinary, incremental Maintenance and Ramp-up costs that were incurred directly to research projects between March 15 and November 15, 2020 that were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Call for Stage 3 applications

All researchers are invited to submit an application to the University for CRCEF Stage 3 Maintenance and Ramp-Up costs for all research projects no matter the funding source.  The CRCEF Working Group will review all submissions with all eligible applications being submitted for funding. Special consideration will be provided in the preparation of submissions for individuals who have been personally impacted by the pandemic (e.g., their own or their immediate family’s health has been directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, family obligations for dependent care or limited access to medical care for persons with disabilities). 

Application documents: 

1. CRCEF Stage 3 Application Form (excel format)

2. Millennium Guide [PDF] 

Please submit your complete application to the following address: Office.of.Research@concordia.ca by November 23, 2020, at noon. Please take care to include your first and last names in the application file name so that we do not receive many files with the same generic name.

Upcoming drop-in Q&A sessions 

In addition, three (3) open Zoom Drop-in Question and Answer sessions (TBA) will be held over the next month for those who may have additional questions or require assistance with their application. 

For the full program details please consult the Canada Research Continuity Emergency Fund website: https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/crcef-fucrc/index-eng.aspx

Concordia University established a CRCEF Working Group to implement the program and distribute the funds in line with the agency requirements.

Following is a list of our committee members and their titles:

Chair:

Paula Wood-Adams, Interim Vice-President, Research and Graduate Studies

Members:

Monica Mulrennan, Associate Vice-President, Research, Development and Outreach
Heather Adams-Robinette, Director, Vice-President, Research and Graduate Studies Sector
Daniel Therrien, Executive Director, Strategic Business Units Compliance and Support
Cristina Di Menna, interim Assistant Director, Research Funds
Umar Khan, Supervisor, Research Funds
Andrea Rodney, Manager Research Grants

Decision process for the distribution of funds received in Stage 1, 2 and 4:

In determining the allocation of the Stages 1, 2 and 4 funds, Concordia has put a distribution plan in place based directly on the Stage 1 formula detailed in the CRCEF program. This formula calculates 75% of the total amount of eligible support from non-governmental sources for individual salary costs of research personnel, up to a maximum of $847 per week for the period of March 30 to June 19, 2020. This period was chosen because it coincides with the onset of the pandemic, when the greatest adverse impact occurred and the most significant amount of salary expenses was incurred.

Concordia made an institutional commitment during the initial shut-down to maintain all salary expenses (including all research projects) in order to prevent furloughs and layoffs, and help limit the disruption to personnel and their families. The allocation of the CRCEF, will give priority  to research projects identified by researchers as having terminated personnel costs due to COVID-19, provided the contracts can be extended during the eligible period.

Decision process for the distribution of funds in Stage 3

University Notional allocation $911,606

1. All eligible projects will receive a maximum of $4,000 from the notional amount allocated to the University by the CRCEF program. If a project has requested less than $4,000, then the full amount will be provided and the project will not be eligible for additional funding.
2. If there is a remaining balance of the notional allocation following step 1, the funds will be divided equally among the eligible applications until the notional amount has been reached.
3. If the requested funds exceed the University’s notional amount, the University will submit a Stage 3 request for the additional funds required above the notional amount.
4. If the University‘s request for additional funds is granted, each project will receive additional funding with priority given to those projects with maintenance costs.

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Considerations

Concordia University is a forward-thinking, next-generation university, committed to fostering an equitable, diverse, and inclusive community. As with all funding opportunities, Concordia has ensured that the management of the CRCEF allocations has been undertaken with a focus on removing systemic barriers to equity-seeking groups (including, but not limited to, women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities, and LGBTQ2+ individuals). Our diverse selection committee members – each of whom has received EDI and unconscious bias training – are employing a non-competitive decision-making and distribution process that recognizes research that is non-traditional or unconventional, based in Indigenous ways of knowing, outside the mainstream of disciplines, or focused on issues of gender, race or minority status. The committee is guided by the principles and practices embedded in Concordia's Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan for the Canada Research Chairs Program (adjudicated as "fully satisfying" the Canada Research Chairs Program's EDI requirements), as well as the priorities identified by Concordia's Working Group on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion for our forthcoming university-wide EDI Action Plan. 

Additional questions about the program or the distribution of funds to eligible projects at all Stages (Stages 1, 2 and 4 for Salary support and Stage 3 for Maintenance and Ramp-up Costs) may be directed to:

Name: Andrea Rodney

Email Address: Andrea.Rodney@concordia.ca

Yes, with the understanding that any planned research activities and associated timelines must take into consideration the limitations on access to lab spaces and in-person work.  Please contact a member of the Research Partnerships and Innovation team to discuss the opportunity and establish next steps.

Requests of this nature must be handled on a case-by-case basis, as every sponsor will differ in its approach.  Please contact a member of our team to discuss the specifics and we will be happy to work with you, in conjunction with the sponsor, to determine what accommodations can be made through an amendment to the existing agreement.

Yes, you can still declare a new technology to the Office of Research.  Please contact us for guidance on the process.

While researchers are still strongly encouraged to proceed with remote/online research, with proper ethics approval for this type of work, Concordia has implemented a gradual resumption of in-person research involving human participants. The process is detailed here. An amendment to an existing protocol may be required. Please contact the Ethics Unit to determine the requirements for your specific situation.

You are required to submit an amendment request to your existing protocol.​ Since you may wish to return to in-person data collection once the current suspension is lifted, please do not remove any methodologies already approved under the protocol; rather simply request the addition of remote/online recruitment and data collection.

The amendment request must contain:

1. A cover email requesting an amendment to an approved protocol
2. A separate document in PDF outlining any modifications with a clear, detailed explanation as to why the change is being made; list where each document has been modified (SPF and/or supporting documents)
3. Copies of the revised SPF and supporting documents with all changes clearly highlighted; do not resend all your appendices – send only those that pertain to the amendment request
4. Any new appendices; these must be provided as separate documents saved in PDF 

​ All amendment requests should be submitted by email to oor.ethics@concordia.ca.

Priority review of COVID-19-related projects, as well as rush review of amendments requesting the transition to remote/online research, have been implemented.

The committee continues to meet as per its usual schedule, and the review of regular protocols is not disrupted.​

There are three different categories of additional research-attributable risk that can arise in the COVID-19 environment:

New risks arising from changes to researcher’s plan for interacting with participants:

For example, a researcher may decide to communicate with participants remotely instead of in-person to respect physical distancing and mitigate the transmission/spread of the virus through human contact. While this may address risks related to physical contact, researchers and research ethics boards (REBs) should be mindful that this change introduces new risks and ethics issues related to privacy and confidentiality of information when using digital platforms and home offices, and the need for new security and safety measures to protect participants’ information. Where, for example, researchers attempt to reduce the risk of infection by mailing experimental drugs to participants rather than continuing in-person participation, this will likely require a change to the researcher’s plan for monitoring any side effects.

Depending on the participant pool, the change from in-person to remote participation may also introduce new ethics issues related to fairness and equity, where only those with access and ability to participate remotely (e.g. due to internet connectivity, computer/ smart phone availability and capacity) can continue to participate in the research. “…[P]ractices of researchers or REBs, whether intentional or inadvertent, can exclude some members of society from participating in research” (Chapter 4, Introduction).

New risks that emerge, even if the research plan remains unchanged:

For example, the continued participation of participants who provide weekly blood samples at a hospital may subject them to new risks of exposure to the coronavirus during their commute, or as a result of their proximity to other participants or to members of the research team. Also, new public health requirements for reporting can introduce new risks related to privacy and confidentiality in ongoing research. For example, if new security standards require researchers to retain the participants’ personal information for contact tracing purposes, researchers can no longer guarantee participants’ anonymity (see Application of Article 5.2).

In addition to risks of increased participant exposure to the virus, there are possible societal risks of further transmitting the virus beyond the individual participants to other third parties, including family members.

Changes in risk levels arising from changes to the participants’ personal circumstances:

During the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, “participants … may be rendered more vulnerable by the nature of the emergency” (Application of Article 6.21). Vulnerabilities can be psychological due to isolation, stress, anxiety, or for economic reasons due to financial burdens of the pandemic or unemployment. Vulnerabilities can also be social in nature due to limited access to critical services, or physical vulnerability due to pre-existing medical conditions or age. For example, when research on self-harm or suicide involving participants began in non-pandemic times and continues in a COVID-19 environment, researchers need to re-assess the vulnerability of their participants in the context of research. Researchers should consider the additional stress that participants may be experiencing in their personal life. Participants who take part in ongoing research at a research site may be anxious or fearful about exposure in a potential COVID-19 environment, and may no longer wish to continue participating in research. Similarly, a high-risk research study conducted in-person to test a new drug on immunocompromised patients may be deemed acceptable for those participants in non-pandemic times. However, the risk to participants may rise to unacceptable levels in a pandemic context. Participants may no longer accept risks they would have otherwise accepted in non-pandemic contexts. Others may be willing to accept risks they would not have otherwise accepted, in the absence of a known cure for COVID-19 or COVID related complications; for example, participation in treatment trials for those infected with the virus or participation in prevention trials, including participation in vaccine studies.

Changes or unanticipated issues that may increase the level of risk for participants or that have other ethical implications affecting participants’ welfare must be submitted for research ethics board (REB) review (see Articles 6.15 and 6.16). As with other changes to the research, the level of additional risks and their impact on the welfare of participants determine when researchers should report the changes to the REB - whether immediately, or if the researcher can document and summarize the changes in annual status reports. Where applicable, researchers must also provide to the REB their plan to manage additional risks through safety plans or technical safeguards, and their efforts to reach a favorable balance of risks and benefits for participants.

As with the assessment of the ethical acceptability of research, the REB review of the changes “involves consideration of the foreseeable risks, the potential benefits and the ethical implications of the research” (Article 2.9). REBs assess those risks that are attributable to the research. The TCPS states that “[w]hen describing the foreseeable risks and potential benefits of research involving participants who are also exposed to other risks, researchers should clearly distinguish between the risks that are attributable to the research, and the risks to which participants would normally be exposed” (Article 2.10).

Researchers must inform participants of the changes or unanticipated additional research-attributable risks as part of their “ongoing duty to provide participants with all information relevant to their ongoing consent to participate in research” (Article 3.3). In deciding when, how, and how frequently to advise participants of additional risks, researchers and REBs should be guided by the level of those risks and their impact on the potential welfare of participants. They must also consider whether any other policies or requirements apply to the changed circumstances that create the additional risks. These policies and requirements might be sufficient measures to address the identified risk, and therefore changes to the research are not required.

The onus is on the researcher to satisfy the research ethics board (REB) that the research can proceed during the pandemic. The following are some questions that REBs should consider in reviewing the ethical acceptability of initial submissions of research or ongoing research in a pandemic environment. Each research is different, and the nature of participant pools varies, so the issues to consider should be tailored on a case-by-case basis.

Impact on Study Conduct and its Scientific Validity

• Can the research involve participants remotely rather than in person?
• Is the research question still relevant within the context of the pandemic environment?
• Will the pandemic environment impact or alter the representativeness of the participant sample, or the sample plan, and thus its scientific validity?
• Has interruption of the research (i.e., the stopping and resumption due to the pandemic), or the availability of research funds, impacted its scientific validity or feasibility?

Impact on Risks and Benefits of Research

• Has the researcher considered new risks attributed to the research as a result of COVID-19 environment?
• Has the level of risk of previously approved research changed?
• Can the researcher maintain a favorable balance of risks and benefits?
• What measures has the researcher taken to mitigate any increased levels of risk?
• Does resuming the research impose additional burdens on participants (e.g. telecommunications cost) to continue to participate in the research?
• Does the researcher expect the vulnerability of the participants to change within the context of the research?
• Are the initial anticipated benefits of research still possible?

Impact on the Consent Process

• Do alternate consent strategies need to be considered, for example seeking consent over the internet rather than in person?
• Is the information provided to participants as part of the consent process still accurate, or does it need to be updated?
• Does resumption or continuation of approved research introduce unanticipated changes that may increase the level of risk to require informing the participants as part of the ongoing consent process, for example, informing participants about new information, changed procedures, or changed protections that might affect the participants’ choice to continue to participate in the research?

Other Ethics Issues

• If there is a change to previously approved research, does it raise other ethics issues e.g. inclusion and exclusion issues or new risks related to privacy and confidentiality?
• In the case of multi-jurisdictional and international research, is the researcher sufficiently aware of the local COVID-19 circumstances in the other sites to be able to assess any changed level of risk to participants, and how this may affect any proposed changes to the study and its procedures?
• Where research is based on community engagement or research agreements, has the researcher considered how to negotiate or implement any proposed changes (e.g. additional consultation, engagement or permission needed to begin recruitment or resume the research)?
• Are there other community constraints or institutional permissions required to begin recruitment or resume the research?
• While not a formal part of REBs’ responsibilities, do REBs have concerns about the safety of researchers and the research team members (e.g. the availability of personal protective equipment) that REBs should share with researchers or refer to other appropriate bodies within the institution?