Joining the university's research ethics board

[Parasaurolophus]

My university's research ethics board has a number of faculty vacancies at the moment, and I've been contemplating signing up to fill one of those vacancies. (They have more vacancies than applicants, and they aren't picky, so...)

FWIW, I've already made some inquiries with the relevant parties, and determined (1) that I'm perfectly eligible and adequately qualified, (2) what I need to read, learn, and know to function effectively in that capacity, and (3) what the workload is like ( < 10 hrs a month). The question is: what should I know about this kind of thing that I wouldn't necessarily learn from the Tri-Council Policy Statement? And, crucially: is this a mistake?

For context, this is a teaching-focused university which was a CC until about ten years ago. There's not a ton of research being done here, let alone research involving human beings. The main exception is the Psych department, which is trying to put together a major (but doesn't have it yet). There's no tenure here (just a robust union), but my position is basically secure over the long-term (my sections could get cut in the short term because I'm near the bottom of the union ladder, but my position won't be cut. And given departmental dispositions, I should be able to recover from section cuts pretty quickly). I'm very research-active, although not in the subfields or cross-disciplinary collaborations that involve human research subjects.

Looking to the mid-term, in a year or so I'll have to start showing a modicum of 'professional development'—which won't be a problem, because they count research and service to the profession, and I do a lot of both. But I suspect they'd like to see me doing something for the institution, too. So I'm thinking that joining the REB would be a good way to demonstrate that kind of service. Plus, since most of the courses my department teaches are ethics courses, I figure it might help us to demonstrate the department's utility somewhere down the road. It seems like a pretty easy way to make myself indispensable, and to earn goodwill.

At the same time, I want to gently start cultivating skills and experience which will make me attractive elsewhere, and for a wider range of positions. Because I don't want to stay at this institution forever. And it seems like this is a chance to boost my admin and applied ethics credentials, such as they are. I'm also genuinely interested, although not to the extent that I'd pursue the interest absent handy opportunities falling into my lap, like now. Am I totally out to lunch?

[eigen]

I'm assuming some US-Canada differences here, and that REB is roughly equivalent to IRB (Institutional Review Board) in the US.

The advice I've been given is that IRB can be a great committee to join early, especially if it's relatively functional at your school. It usually affords you the chance to interact with people from across campus, both applicants and committee members, and isn't such an amorphous or heavy lift that it will keep you from doing other things.

I would also say that it's a good portion of "service" if you're looking to apply elsewhere, since it's the type of service work that every institution is likely to have an equivalent of, and also one that can really benefit from bringing in "fresh blood" with experience in protocols and procedures from elsewhere.

I haven't served on IRB at either of my recent institutions, so just going off what I know/what mentors have suggested to me- others here may have more personal experience.

[Parasaurolophus]

Thanks for the reassurance!

I'm assuming some US-Canada differences here, and that REB is roughly equivalent to IRB (Institutional Review Board) in the US.

Yes, my understanding is that it's pretty much the same thing.

[Bonnie]

How sure are you on that <10 hours per month? What system does your institution use for protocol submission? How much administrative support is there for the routing process? I'm at R2 State U. We were doing paper submission up until six or so years ago, then an even worse online submission until three or so years ago. Now we are using a good online system. In addition to making it easier to submit and follow through with revisions, the new system is much easier (less time consuming) for IRB committee members. We also added to our admin staff in the research ethics office and have better training for staff, faculty and committee members. More proposals are rightly (IMO) getting exempt status. That also takes time burden away from IRB committee members.

Five years ago many people felt it was too burdensome a committee to sit on. That burden is greatly reduced now, and I have not heard complaints from newer members.

[Puget]

As a human subjects researcher, I would just say if you want to do this make sure you are willing to make the time to really get to understand the practicalities of human subjects research and what your role is. Sometimes we get reviewers who clearly only have only the vaguest notion of how human subjects research works, and raise bizarre objections to things that are completely standard practice and minimal risk, or want us to change things that are frankly none of their business because they have nothing to do with risks to participants -- favorite resent example is a reviewer wanting us to change the anchor point labels on a published questionnaire because they thought they might confuse participants somehow, which is not something one does (makes the results not comparable to previous research) and also completely beside the point from an IRB standpoint since it has no baring on risk.

In other words, cool with me if an ethicist wants to do some applied ethics, but make sure you understand something about the fields you are applying your ethics too, how they work, and what actually poses risks to participants. When in doubt, ask the PIs questions. They will generally be more than happy to explain things that may be unfamiliar.

Also, if you are looking to move into admin, IRBs at larger universities  have a professional admin staff, so that could be a direction you could move in if you end up liking the work.

[Morden]

Hi OP, I think our contexts are relatively close--I'm at a Canadian undergraduate university which used to be a college. I'm also on the ethics board here. It's an interesting task-focused service opportunity. I have learned a lot over the past couple years. At our place, most of the reviews are minimal risk and so are delegated to individual board members; we probably have one or two full board reviews during our monthly meeting. I think most months it would be under 10 hours commitment. 

[secundem_artem]

What Puget said.  I've gotten some bizarre feedback from reviewers with no understanding of human subjects research.  You should probably ask the chair or liaison to point you to the appropriate legislation that governs human subjects research.  Here in the US at least, there is considerable federal regulation on human subjects research - probably not a lot different in the Great White North.

You may also want to ask if any of the faculty may collaborate with physicians or other biomedical researchers - especially for drug trials.  The faculty and physicians are often just the on the ground subject recruitment and data collection arm of a project led by big pharma who will write the research protocol - which could be 100 pages long.  But if most of the projects coming through your committee are from the social sciences or are faculty/student collaborations (what we mostly have at Artem U) the workload is probably manageable and you will get some useful visibility and contacts across campus.

Side note story -- 10 years ago I was recruiting on campus for a study interviewing subjects about some health related issue.  I promptly got an email from a non-professional staff member who was outraged OUTRAGED I TELL YOU!! that we actually did research on humans at Artem U.  A surprising number of the public seem to think research involves taking people into the basement and attaching electrodes to their nether bits.

[polly_mer]

I enjoyed my time on the IRB at Super Dinky.  Most of our reviews were undergrad research in psychology and related areas.  It was a bit of a learning curve since I was an inaugural member of the board, but it was quite manageable.

If you need a institutional service slot filled, this can be a good choice as your only one.

[smallcleanrat]

Side note story -- 10 years ago I was recruiting on campus for a study interviewing subjects about some health related issue.  I promptly got an email from a non-professional staff member who was outraged OUTRAGED I TELL YOU!! that we actually did research on humans at Artem U.  A surprising number of the public seem to think research involves taking people into the basement and attaching electrodes to their nether bits.

Could you do this with informed consent?

[Parasaurolophus]

Thanks for all the wise counsel, friends, this is really helpful! And I'm building up a good stable of questions to ask at the training meetings.

How sure are you on that <10 hours per month?

I don't have the answers to the other questions, but I'll investigate/pose them, thanks! As for this one: I'm fairly confident. I've asked the existing members, and they all report around 8 hours/month or less. There's not a ton of research done here, so honestly I'm surprised it's as much as all that.

Sometimes we get reviewers who clearly only have only the vaguest notion of how human subjects research works, and raise bizarre objections to things that are completely standard practice and minimal risk, or want us to change things that are frankly none of their business because they have nothing to do with risks to participants -- favorite resent example is a reviewer wanting us to change the anchor point labels on a published questionnaire because they thought they might confuse participants somehow, which is not something one does (makes the results not comparable to previous research) and also completely beside the point from an IRB standpoint since it has no baring on risk.

Ugh. I'll make sure to remember the mandate, and how narrow it is! I certainly don't want to get into the business of using it as an opportunity for peer review. That's clearly just a waste of everyone's time.

Side note story -- 10 years ago I was recruiting on campus for a study interviewing subjects about some health related issue.  I promptly got an email from a non-professional staff member who was outraged OUTRAGED I TELL YOU!! that we actually did research on humans at Artem U.  A surprising number of the public seem to think research involves taking people into the basement and attaching electrodes to their nether bits.

Oh! I can't wait! =D

[Parasaurolophus]

Had a preliminary meeting today. Apparently the REB only looked at 14 proposals last year, so the workload really does look quite low.

Also, one of the other eager beavers asked a bunch of questions that made it clear they were mostly concerned with fixing or tinkering with research methods, rather than addressing strictly ethical issues. =p