| Hi all, As requested, I’ve created a survey petition asking that the previous REB be brought forward for Senate ratification to ensure we have a working REB in place and that previous approvals aren’t placed at risk. The petition also asks that any changes in procedures go through a consultation process and formal approval by Senate, due to the broad range and reach of the proposed procedural changes.
Because the REB is embedded in the work of SFU, I’ve linked to the petition through SFU Web survey, requiring readers to sign in to access the content.
One final point, please note that these lists don’t cover the entire SFU community. I would encourage you to send the link and this background thread to your SFU colleagues broadly, so that as many community members as possible will have the opportunity to sign on.
Senate meets Monday, February 6th at 5:30, and I’ll be bringing forward the petition at that meeting.
Thanks for your care and engagement! Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Dan On 2023-01-31 12:20, Wendy Loken Thornton wrote: Thanks to Dan Laitsch for bringing this important issue to the academic discussion group. Please take a minute to read, as this is deeply concerning for human participant research, collegial governance, and academic freedom at SFU. I have been Chair of the SFU REB for the past 7 years. Per existing SFU policy, the Chair is elected annually by REB members, who are nominated by their faculties and approved by Senate. I agree with Dan that what the VPRI is proposing and what he will be presenting to Senate on February 6th amounts to a hostile take-over of the REB. For the past few decades, SFU policies have been carefully structured to allow the REB to function at arm's length from Administration to avoid institutional conflicts of interest. As Dan details in his email, The VPRI is proposing to appoint Chair and Vice Chair positions, to appoint REB members, and to eliminate student members among other changes. You can review these changes in the links Dan provided, and in the open Senate agenda and documents here (http://www.sfu.ca/senate.html). I will also state that in my opinion, the VPRI's office has not been forthcoming regarding their perceived need for such immediate and drastic changes to the current REB structure. The OVPRI has offered pretexts such as needing to make changes for the upcoming medical school (won't be operational for years), or that they were recommended by an "external review" commissioned by the OVPRI (they were not). There was no consultation with the current REB re: the need for such changes; in fact, board members, the Chair and Vice Chair were told we had been renewed in May 2022 and have been meeting regularly since, approving hundreds of studies in a now indeterminate status. All Tri-Council grant holders should be concerned that SFU does not currently have a duly constituted REB. This administrative interference into the composition of the REB is deeply concerning as the potential for institutional conflicts of interest are clear. The OVPRI's current plan pushes SFU once again into the dangerous territory of removing barriers specifically put in place to avoid administrative interference into decision making that may tend toward the Administrations financial or reputational interests. The REB has been faced with such pressures historically, and SFU's track record of making decisions that put the institutions financial interest above those of participant or researchers interests are well-documented. For example, a review of the infamous Ogden case in 1998 concluded that SFU Administration had put concerns over legal costs and its reputation ahead of its obligation to defend research integrity and academic freedom. Finally, note that CAUT has expressed their serious concerns about the implications of these changes for collegial governance and academic freedom in a letter to Joy Johnson last week, and has urged SFU to immediately restore the composition of the REB under the proper authority of the Senate. Along with Dan, I encourage you to reach out to your Faculty Senators, the SFU Board of Governors, and the VPRI to share your concerns. Wendy *** Wendy Loken Thornton, Ph.D. R.Psych
Professor, Department of Psychology
Chair, Research Ethics Board,
Simon Fraser University *** The SFU Burnaby campus is located on the unceded traditional territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam, and Kwikwetlem Nations.
Hi Dan, Can you clarify—what was the prior process for filling positions on the REB? As well, was there a policy or process for the removal of members on the REB? I’m trying to understand precisely the changes in process that SFU is proposing and where they are proposing a greater role for the VPRI and a lesser role for the Senate. Apologies for the length of this message…. A heads up that the February Senate Agenda is now available and it includes some proposed changes to the Research Ethics Board procedures. Before I dig too much into those, I first want to summarize what we know about the REB and the current controversy (see the previous SFUFA Bulletin, linked here https://www.sfufa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/January-23-bulletin.pdf). There are two streams of concern: 1. Procedural: that is, since May 2022, SFU has violated or ignored many of its own procedures regarding REB appointments, creating the current crisis; and 2. Substantive: that is, the proposed changes to the REB procedures create an inherent conflict of interest between SFU and the REB. I’ll deal with each item separately. A. SFU allowed the terms of 13 members of the REB to expire, including the Chair and Vice Chair (11 expired May 31, 2022 and two others in December). Four further vacancies in required areas remain (2 in research methods; one in research ethics; and one in Indigenous research) B. SFU allowed expired members to believe they had been renewed (and indeed told them they had) and as a result they continued to do ethics work as the REB (including reviewing and approving ethics applications). C. SFU removed these members in early January without any justification beyond expired terms. It is unclear whether any new members were appointed. D. Senate has not been consulted in these removals and based on the REB annual report presented in December, believes the REB from last May is the official SFU REB. E. If these members are no longer on the REB, it is unclear as to whether we have a current REB in place (since none of the five required core members are in place) or if we have had an REB in place at all, since last May. This would seem to put all ethics approvals offered since last May in jeopardy. F. Rather than address the problem and and ask Senate to renew the expired Board or install a new Board, SFU is asking Senate to allow the VPRI to make revisions to the appointments procedures. G. This appears to be a hostile takeover of the REB by the VPRI and has created uncertainty at SFU as to the status of ethics approvals and who, if anyone, is making those approvals. To me this is a substantial concern, both due to the fact that we may not have a functioning REB in place and may not have had an appropriately appoint board in place since last May, AND because nobody is taking accountability for the problem. Wow does this require a lot of reading—SFU is proposing to adopt modified recommendation of the Canadian Association of Research Ethics Boards. On its face, many of these recommendations make sense, but there are serious concerns about the modifications that SFU has made that do not match CAREB model language. Further, the VPRI actually takes on the role of Chair of the REB in the SFU revision (specifically SOP 202, 5.4.1, inviting special experts to the review of some applications; and, 5.7.3 removing REB members who are not fulfilling their duties). These are the express duties of the Chair in the National Standards and giving these powers to the VPRI creates an inherent conflict of interest. Why is this important? As the Standards all reference, the REB needs to be independent of the University because the University has other interests to protect than those of researchers and research participants (some of you may remember the Ogden incident: http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/OgdenPge.htm). As a result, CAREB notes: "In the interest of public trust and the integrity of the ethics review, the REB must act independently from the Organization under whose authority they were established and given their mandate, and avoid or manage real, potential or perceived COI.”
The Tri-Council Policy Statement is more specific about potential conflicts: "Institutions involved in research hold trust relationships with participants, research sponsors, researchers, and society. These institutions may have financial or reputational interests including, but not limited to, the provision of education and the promotion of research that conflict with the institution's obligations to protect and respect human dignity as characterized by the core principles of this Policy. For example, institutions may experience pressures to attract particular research funding or certain types of research activities that are self-sustaining, which may compromise their independence and public trust. Institutions have an obligation to ensure that the ethical conduct of research is not compromised by real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest."
Having the VPRI appoint, renew, and remove all members of the REB, as well as appoint and remove the Chair and Vice Chair, while occasionally taking on duties of the Chair, clearly (in my opinion) creates a conflict of interest. I’m sure there are other issues and I’d invite other folks with greater expertise in ethics than me to comment as well. Thanks for taking the time to read this—this really feel like an existential threat to research at SFU and to participant protections within our research activities. I’d encourage you to reach out to your Faculty Senators, the SFU Board of Governors, and the VPRI in sharing your concerns.
|