For streamlining the ethics review of multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research, institutions may

For streamlining the ethics review of multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research, institutions may

• A. Follow a single national protocol
• B. Adopt their own approaches
• C. Cannot alter review processes
• D. Require all REBs to review identically

Answer: (B)

When research crosses jurisdictional lines and carries minimal risk, the guiding idea is to balance efficient oversight with strong participant protections. TCPS 2 supports institutions taking practical, context‑specific steps to streamline ethics review rather than forcing everyone to follow a single rigid process. By adopting their own approaches, institutions can implement coordinated arrangements that fit their structures—such as relying on a lead site's ethics review, aligning consent and documentation across sites, or using harmonized procedures—so oversight is efficient without compromising protections. A single national protocol isn’t mandated in this context, and requiring identical reviews across all REBs would be overly rigid and impractical. Saying review processes cannot be altered also ignores the policy emphasis on coordination and flexibility to reduce duplicative reviews while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

When research crosses jurisdictional lines and carries minimal risk, the guiding idea is to balance efficient oversight with strong participant protections. TCPS 2 supports institutions taking practical, context‑specific steps to streamline ethics review rather than forcing everyone to follow a single rigid process. By adopting their own approaches, institutions can implement coordinated arrangements that fit their structures—such as relying on a lead site's ethics review, aligning consent and documentation across sites, or using harmonized procedures—so oversight is efficient without compromising protections.

A single national protocol isn’t mandated in this context, and requiring identical reviews across all REBs would be overly rigid and impractical. Saying review processes cannot be altered also ignores the policy emphasis on coordination and flexibility to reduce duplicative reviews while maintaining appropriate safeguards.