Content area
Full text
Obtaining research ethics approval is an important component of research conducted in humans. Increasingly, researchers undertake multicentre studies, which can require them to seek approvals from a number of research ethics boards (REBs). Many researchers have complained about variability in decisions made by REBs, as well as long delays and increased costs associated with obtaining ethics approval. Some attempts have been made to reduce variation and delays but, despite many reports and intentions to make processes of research ethics approval in Canada more efficient, no national framework for REBs reviewing health research has been achieved. Independent provincial initiatives have arisen, yet obtaining ethics review for the conduct of national and international multicentre studies remains difficult. To truly harmonize ethics review in Canada, national leadership is required to drive change that is both evidence-based and responsive to criticisms.
The purpose of research ethics review is to protect human participants involved in research while ensuring that the level of scrutiny of the proposed project is consistent with the level of risk it poses to participants.1 Some have argued that REBs impede potentially beneficial research - particularly collaborative multicentre research - through variation in the requirements of individual boards, slow processes and the requirement for duplication of effort on the part of researchers. In Canada, institutional REBs have developed independently of one another and, despite attempts to harmonize guidance on the ethical conduct and review of health research, there is no all-encompassing guidance for health-related research: the 1998 Tri-Council Policy Statement, and subsequent revisions, relates only to research conducted at institutions funded by the three major granting agencies or an organization that has adopted the policy statement as a matter of course.2 The Canadian General Standards Board standards for REBs that assess biomedical clinical trials are voluntary and focused on Health Canada-regulated clinical trials reviewed and conducted under the Good Clinical Practices section in part C, division 5 of the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations.3 Furthermore, provincial privacy legislation is often cited as a barrier for interprovincial acceptance of ethics reviews.4
Some countries, such as New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom, have sought to solve similar problems through a process of accrediting REBs. Although approaches vary,5 the idea is that accreditation will harmonize REB operations...