Provide `ethics_review_id` field in `acquisition.json`

[dougollerenshaw]

The acquisition.json file created by the VR Foraging task does not currently contain a value for ethics_review_id. This value should be provided.

One suggestion would be to gather this information from the experimenter at the beginning of the experiment (whenever they are also entering the subject_id and the experimenter_id values).

[bruno-f-cruz]

@cindypoo @tiffanyona
I believe we decided this sort of thing should be handled in dataverse and grabbed during data-transfer (https://github.com/AllenNeuralDynamics/aind-scientific-computing/issues/358).

[dougollerenshaw]

@cindypoo @tiffanyona I believe we decided this sort of thing should be handled in dataverse and grabbed during data-transfer (AllenNeuralDynamics/aind-scientific-computing#358).

Note this comment from @saskiad on the issue you linked:
https://github.com/AllenNeuralDynamics/aind-scientific-computing/issues/358#issuecomment-3524608439

[saskiad]

I'm all for having this in Dataverse in the long run. I don't know what the realistic timeline is for this - especially because there isn't an existing system for tracking this that we can duplicate or pull from. So until that gets figured out, this needs to come from the experimenter.

[bruno-f-cruz]

I saw Saskia's post. However, the way I understood it was that nothing would be done until the proper infrastructure required (e.g., the table or dataverse) was built. Can we leave it as is (as it is not a required field) until that exists?

If this is of critical importance, go ahead and go with the short term solution, all I am asking is to not be the one owning the technical debt.

For instance, this can also be easily done at the data-transfer level by maintaining a correspondence between project name (which we are supplying via the data-transfer-service) and the IACUC protocols (you can maintain a list instead of a single protocol). Would SciComp be ok building this solution?

Alternatively, I can start prompting this information from people at the rig. But I will leave it up to @tiffanyona @cindypoo @jasonyslee and likely RAs running experiments.

[tiffanyona]

Ideally we don't want this prompted to the RAs cause they don't have easy access to this information, it's one extra step for each mouse everyday and can be prone to mistakes.

[saskiad]

However, the way I understood it was that nothing would be done until the proper infrastructure required (e.g., the table or dataverse) was built.

No, we did not agree to this.

I am asking is to not be the one owning the technical debt.

But if we punt this until dataverse can handle it, will you own getting this added back to all the records that it will be missing from?

by maintaining a correspondence between project name (which we are supplying via the data-transfer-service) and the IACUC protocols

There is not a strict one-to-one correspondence between project name and IACUC protocol, and specific experiments fall under specific protocols - listing every protocol for a project is not the correct behavior.

I honestly am uncomfortable with the idea that the people responsible for these experiments are not aware of which iacuc protocol they are working under.