Is having alternate/reserve members a helpful practice?

Erich von Dietze

Finding, inducting, and retaining quality members to serve on Human Research Ethics Committees and/or Animal Ethics Committees is not an easy task.  Recruiting people for some membership categories can be more straightforward e.g. recruiting researchers who often probably have a vested interest in supporting other researchers. However, people representing other membership categories (especially those categories which require specialist knowledge, or which involve recruiting people from outside the institution) tend to be more difficult to recruit. Then there is the time it takes individuals to become sufficiently experienced in the process of the committee[1] and the types of applications to feel they are making a valuable contribution.  Committee administrators tend to take one of three approaches to the need to recruit new members.

1. The committee has only the required number of members as defined by the respective Code[2].
2. The committee has some ‘standby’ or alternate members who can be called on to substitute for absences.
3. The committee has two or more members representing each category to help ensure as far as possible that there is full representation at every meeting.

Each of these three models has benefits and risks, each needing to be developed to suit the needs of the particular institution’s research profile and committee.

1. Having only the required number of members.

This model is the simplest. It fulfills the requirements of the respective Code and enables a tight committee process to be followed. The model tends to suit smaller institutions or those with a relatively small number of applications. It can also suit larger institutions which have distributed ethics decision-making with only a small number of applications being referred to the ‘main’ committee. Key risks lie in managing member absences, succession planning, ensuring that members in each category have had sufficient opportunity to contribute to the committee’s deliberations and that nothing important has been missed in the review process. When a member is absent, the interactions and development of understanding at committee meetings tend not to be as rich as they might otherwise be.

For an administrator, the idea of finding additional people to serve in every position might seem unattractive, even daunting. However, there are good reasons to consider this as well as some risks. Recruiting alternate or additional members is not the same as having access to a ‘panel’ of experts who may from time to time attend and give advice to the committee (which is another option some committees have adopted).

2. Standby or alternate members

This model continues to have a tight process with usually no more than the required number of individuals attending meetings.  Alternate members are recruited and inducted to be available in the event that an ordinary member is unable to attend any particular meeting.

An alternate member in every position means that

• In the event of a planned or unplanned absence by any member, balance across all categories is maintained. The person called in to a meeting will be familiar with the procedures of the committee.
• It supports and facilitates an institution’s succession planning and ensures that the committee turnover process minimises impact on the review process. This is especially helpful if people are appointed with overlapping terms of office.
• In some instances, such as an Animal Ethics Committee, there are very specific requirements regarding the quorum for a meeting. If a member is unable to attend a consistent alternate can be imperative to enabling decisions to be reached.

There are some risks in this model including the commitment of an alternate members if they are rarely called in to meetings. If an alternate member is only called on infrequently, to what extent should that person be asked to read agenda papers ‘just in case’, and what would reasonable notice be if they might be needed for a meeting?  Even if alternate members are called on more frequently, there may be a risk to the consistency and continuity of decisions reached if individuals bring different approaches to the task.

3. The multiple member model

In this model a committee has additional members recruited and regularly attending to ensure that all categories are more than fully represented at every meeting.

This approach is particularly useful for larger institutions or committees with higher workloads. It enables workload to be spread across more people e.g. if certain members are asked to focus on or be a lead voice concerning specifically identified applications.  It does risk the committee becoming larger than needed, and if all members are in attendance can require a deft chair to manage the meeting and obtain consensus decisions.

There are considerations for institutions, administrators and chairs before appointing alternate or multiple members:

1. Any model which recruits alternate or additional members also increases workload for committee administrators who manage the underlying processes.
2. Should multiple people be appointed into every category or only some?
3. Should the alternate member attend all meetings or only attend when needed?
   1. If they attend all meetings, how are speaking and voting rights managed?
   2. If they attend only when needed, how is it ensured that they have sufficient currency or experience to be effective participants in the committee meeting?
4. An institution may ask alternate members to rotate with the substantive member a certain number of times per year, but this can risk loosening the currency of the substantive member. This could also be seen as introducing bias into decision making for individual applications.
5. If members are provided with an honorarium or fee, what should the alternate member be paid? Additional payments, no matter how small, have budget implications.
6. Adding members will generally require changes to committee guiding documents such as committee procedures.
7. Should alternates always be provided with a copy of the agenda and be expected to read it whether anticipating to attend or not?
8. How much notice should an alternate be given for required attendance at a meeting?

Overall, the risks and benefits tend to balance out fairly evenly.  While there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution, it is important that as research grows and as institutions seek to be nimbler those managing ethics committees give some serious thought to this issue and develop a considered view.  In many instances administrators may make differing choices for human and animal ethics committees for practical reasons.  Managing committee members can be complex and time consuming but is essential for the governance and strong functioning of an effective committee.

[1] A process that can take three years

[2] The term ‘Code’ is used to refer to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes.

This post may be cited as:
von Dietze, E. (28 October 2022) Is having alternate/reserve members a helpful practice? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/is-having-alternate-reserve-members-a-helpful-practice/