Colleagues,
Earlier today in its communications and marketing email, the university posted an update on the proposed changes to the Research Ethics Board (REB). I am a current member of the REB and want to correct what I think are a few misleading statements in the email.
1) “Following recommendations from an external review panel”: The changes that have created the most pushback are those around VPRI appointment of REB members and the Chair and changes to the duration of these appointments. The external review panel did encourage better communication between the REB and VPRI and partnership in developing REB policies. It did not include a recommendation that the VPRI appoint REB members. Rather, it recommends that the Office of Research Ethics (ORE) recommend the appointment of REB members in consultation with the REB Chair and VPRI. This is similar to past practice where the ORE would seek out people interested in being REB members from the individual Faculties and inform the chair to help fill vacancies. This is not the same as the VPRI simply appointing members (with Senate approval) and the Chair. Again, the external report recommends that departments that submit large numbers of ethics applications nominate members to serve on the REB. This is current practice and not the same as the VPRI appointing REB members.
2) “as we work to ensure REB complies with national standards”. The Canadian Association of Research Ethics Boards (CAREB) standard operating procedures (SOPs) (https://careb-accer.org/resources-section/n2-careb-accer-reb-sops/) that are being used as a partial model for the proposed SFU changes do not require that the VPRI or equivalent appoint REB members. In fact, there are a number of changes to the CAREB SOPs in the proposed SFU SOPs (https://www.sfu.ca/research/researcher-resources/ethics-human-research/standard-operating-procedures).
3) “In the meantime, there is no disruption to the current process, and ethics approvals continue as usual.” While minimal risk studies can currently be approved and amended by ORE staff, there is currently no mechanism to approve above minimal risk studies. Further, staff cannot currently consult with the Chair on risk assessment of studies. The REB is unable to formally meet to discuss issues related to research ethics at SFU. The REB is out of compliance with the requirements of TCPS2 for a properly constituted REB. The aforementioned external report states that the REB is the only body that should make decisions about revoking an ethics certification and suspending a study as a result of a safety issue or a non-compliance concern. This is currently not possible.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Snyder
-- Jeremy Snyder Professor | Faculty of Health Sciences Simon Fraser University | Blusson Hall 10516 8888 University Dr., Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 T: 778 782 3258 | http://www.fhs.sfu.ca/portal_memberdata/jeremycsnyder @jeremycsnyder