Research Ethics Board (REB)

A Research Ethics Board (REB) is the committee-based ethics-review body used throughout Canadian research institutions to review, approve, require modification of, or disapprove research involving human participants before that research may begin. REB is the term used consistently in TCPS2 (Tri-Council Policy Statement), the joint research-ethics policy of Canada’s three federal funding agencies (CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC). REB is functionally equivalent to an IRB (Institutional Review Board) in the United States, an REC (Research Ethics Committee) in the UK and EU, or an HREC (Human Research Ethics Committee) in Australia — four different national terms for the same underlying role: an independent body that weighs the risks and benefits of a study before human participants can be recruited into it.

Terminology bridge: REB vs IRB vs REC vs HREC

Researchers working across borders, or reading multi-national protocols, regularly encounter all four terms describing the same underlying function of prospective ethics review. None of these bodies are interchangeable as a matter of law — approval from one does not substitute for approval from another, even where the underlying ethical analysis is similar:

• Canada: REB (Research Ethics Board), operating under TCPS2.
• United States: IRB, operating under the US Common Rule (45 CFR 46).
• United Kingdom / European Union: REC, most visibly the NHS Research Ethics Service in the UK.
• Australia: HREC, operating under NHMRC’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.

A US researcher collaborating with a Canadian site, or vice versa, will typically need both an IRB approval and an REB approval — one does not stand in for the other, and CASRAI’s guide on the IRB/REC approval process covers what each type of review actually requires.

What TCPS2 requires of an REB

TCPS2’s Chapter 6 (Governance of Research Ethics Review) sets minimum composition and process requirements every REB must meet. Under TCPS2 Article 6.4, an REB must have at least five members, including both men and women, of whom: at least two members have expertise in the relevant research disciplines, fields, and methodologies that come before the REB; at least one member is knowledgeable in relevant law (mandatory for REBs reviewing biomedical research, advisable for others) but is not the institution’s own legal counsel or risk manager; and at least one member is a community member with no institutional affiliation. Institutional senior administrators are barred from REB membership, to protect the independence of the REB’s decisions from institutional interests. Every institution eligible to receive Tri-Agency (CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC) funding must maintain, or have access to, an REB constituted this way, and researchers at that institution must obtain REB approval before recruiting participants or collecting data for non-exempt human research — regardless of whether the specific study itself carries Tri-Agency grant funds.

What an REB reviews

An REB reviews proposed research involving human participants, their data, or their biological materials, applying TCPS2’s three core ethical principles: Respect for Persons, Concern for Welfare, and Justice. In practice this means an REB evaluates a study’s protocol, informed consent materials, recruitment methods, and risk/benefit balance before approving it, and it continues to oversee the study (through renewals, amendments, and adverse-event reports) for as long as the research is active. Many Canadian researchers complete TCPS 2: CORE, the Panel on Research Ethics’ free tutorial on the Policy’s requirements, before or alongside their first REB submission — the closest Canadian equivalent to CITI Program training in the US, though the two are separate, non-interchangeable programs. The Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) is the body the three Agencies created to steward TCPS2’s ongoing interpretation and revision; it does not itself review individual protocols — that responsibility sits with each institution’s own REB.

REB vs IRB: the practical differences

Beyond the name, REB and IRB differ in legal basis. The US Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A) is a codified federal regulation; research meeting its triggering conditions is regulated by force of law. TCPS2 is a policy, not a statute — it binds Canadian institutions and researchers as a condition of Tri-Agency funding eligibility rather than as a direct legal mandate, though in practice this makes REB review just as mandatory at eligible Canadian institutions. Consent language, protocol documentation, and review records prepared for a US IRB under the Common Rule do not automatically satisfy a Canadian REB’s TCPS2 requirements, and vice versa. A study running sites in both countries needs to confirm which framework, or both, actually governs a given site, and budget separate submission timelines for each review body.

Frequently asked questions

Is REB just the Canadian word for IRB?

Functionally, yes — both are institutional committees that review and approve human-participant research before it begins, and both descend from the same broader tradition of prospective research-ethics review. Legally and procedurally they are distinct: an REB applies TCPS2, an IRB applies the US Common Rule (45 CFR 46), and approval from one does not substitute for approval from the other.

Does every Canadian institution have its own REB?

Most universities, colleges, and research hospitals eligible for Tri-Agency (CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC) funding maintain their own REB, or have access to one (for example through a shared or regional REB arrangement). Some provinces also operate streamlined multi-site REB review models for clinical trials, such as Clinical Trials Ontario’s centralized model.

What is the minimum size of an REB under TCPS2?

TCPS2 Article 6.4 requires at least five members, including at least two with relevant disciplinary expertise, at least one knowledgeable in relevant law, and at least one community member with no institutional affiliation. Institutional senior administrators may not serve on the REB.

Do I need REB approval if my study isn’t Tri-Agency funded?

Usually yes, if the research is conducted under the auspices of an institution that is itself eligible for Tri-Agency funding — TCPS2 applies to human research at that institution generally, not only to the specific projects that carry Tri-Agency grant funds.

References

• Government of Canada, Panel on Research Ethics, “TCPS 2 (2022) – Chapter 6: Governance of Research Ethics Review,” ethics.gc.ca
• Government of Canada, Panel on Research Ethics, “TCPS 2 (2022) – Chapter 1: Ethics Framework,” ethics.gc.ca
• TCPS 2: CORE (Course on Research Ethics), tcps2core.ca