Assessing REB Quality

Saw a post yesterday where Western University’s director of research ethics and compliance touted "speed" as a key feature of CanReview’s proposed single REB review model. But since when has "speed" been a hallmark of rigorous research ethics review? How does this focus align with the primary role of an REB — which is safeguarding the rights, safety, and welfare of research participants?

The core mission of a Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) is protecting human research participants and ensuring responsible conduct of research through rigorous training, oversight, and accountability. Speed, efficiency, and harmonization are byproducts of HRPP accreditation.

In the U.S., the quality of an institution’s HRPP is the backbone of its single REB model – SMART IRB. The SMART IRB model reflects this priority, requiring institutions to undergo or initiate an assessment of their HRPP within five years before joining: “Within the 5 years prior to joining SMART IRB, the institution must have undergone or have initiated an assessment of the quality of its human research protection program (‘HRPP’).” HRPP accreditation is the most widely accepted assessment of HRPP quality - in Canada, this is performed by HRA Canada.

Single REB review must not be imposed on Canadians by a group unwilling to acknowledge the value of HRPP accreditation. Any discussion of single REB review in Canada must involve all stakeholders and be grounded in HRPP accreditation, just as SMART IRB requires. Let’s not reinvent the wheel — let’s ensure it’s moving forward responsibly based on a solid foundation.