Research Ethics Board (REB) Members’ Preparation for, and Perceived Knowledge of Research Ethics

Abstract

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) was first developed to establish a standard of practice in research ethics by the three federal agencies responsible for funding institutional research in Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). In 2010, a second edition of the policy, known as the TCPS 2, was released with updated information and expanded coverage of research ethics issues. According to the TCPS 2, the Agencies' mandate is Bto promote research that is conducted according to the highest ethical standards,^and the TCPS 2 serves as a benchmark for this with respect for human dignity as its underlying value. Research institutions receiving Agency funding are to comply with this policy statement by forming Research Ethics Boards (REBs) to review all research involving human participants. The intention behind this review requirement is to provide a proportionate assessment of the benefit-to-risk ratio of the research, and in that process, to safeguard Brespect for persons^, express a Bconcern for welfare^, and uphold Bjustice^(CIHR, SSHRC, NSERC 2010, p. 8).Research may not proceed until ethics approval is granted by an institution's REB. The current study evaluates REB members' perspectives on their knowledge of research ethics, and juxtaposes these perceptions with those of researchers. Specifically, we are interested in the extent to which REB members with less experience read the TCPS 2, and whether those with less experience have decreased confidence in their ethics knowledge.

An Integrated Psychology Virtual Research Ethics Committee

“…One unexpected outcome of the virtual committees has been that the purpose of face to face meetings has been altered to become about governance and quality assurance instead of considering individual applications. Agenda items now include discussions about the suitability of the application documentation, ethical procedures and processes and training (Egan, Stockley & Lam et al, 2016) [9]. Quality assurance is also addressed by adding controversial or complex applications to the agenda for discussion, with a view to regularly evaluating core ethical concepts and how these are reflected in the departmental procedures and documentation to ensure parity when considering similar applications.…”

Critical Prison Research and University Research Ethics Boards

“…6.3). REBs also have the authority to request clarifications (van den Hoonaard 2011, Egan et al 2016) or stop ongoing research with human participants (Egan et al 2016). An REB approval is said to guarantee the ethical acceptability of the proposed research (TCPS2, art.…”

“…A growing array of concerns over the impact of Canadian REBs on research-related theoretical or practical issues have been documented (Haggerty 2004, Halse and Honey 2007, Guillemin et al 2012, Palys and Lowman 2014, Egan et al 2016, Palys and MacAlister 2016, several of which have brought to the fore difficult encounters between REBs and researchers engaged in non-traditional research designs. Although the TCPS2 officially recognizes the complexity and nuances of qualitative research that may require culturally specific or processual informed consent, some REBs have erred on the side of institutional liability in cases where law enforcement had sought access to research data (van den Hoonaard 2001, Palys and Lowman 2014).…”

Human Research Ethics Committee Experiences and Views About Children’s Participation in Research: Results From the MESSI Study

“…Some authors have commented that there is little transparency about HREC processes and decisions, which are usually not published or shared; it has been suggested that this could result in researchers opting for more conservative research designs and "self-censoring" in order to ensure a smoother ethics approval process (Lynch, 2018). Little research has been undertaken on HRECs themselves, and the limited studies to date have rarely asked HREC members directly about their role (see, for example, Egan et al, 2016;Guillemin et al, 2012;Van Essen et al, 2004).…”