This committee was established under the Dean's Order No. 7/18/4951 (dated 09-06-2026) to ethically review and approve the research proposals of the institution's researchers. The committee is also responsible for formulating guidelines in line with national and international standards and regulations and for delivering lectures and workshops, and it forms part of the institutional accreditation program requirements.
The Research Ethics Committee (REC) is the institution's overarching authority. It is led by a single Chair who oversees both subcommittees, ensures the consistency and uniformity of policy, approves the annual reports submitted to the College Dean and Council, and adjudicates matters that span the two panels or are escalated for resolution.
To safeguard the independence of each subcommittee, the Chair refrains from voting on the routine protocol decisions taken within the panels, confining their role to setting the governing standards and resolving disputes.
A single secretariat serves both panels.
When a human study is reviewed, the decision rests with the human-panel members; for an animal protocol, it rests substantively with the members specialized in animal welfare or veterinary medicine.
Separate protocol logs, distinct review checklists, and independent approval letterheads (IRB vs. IACUC) — even under one committee name.
The separation stays clear if a journal or international funder audits your approvals, protecting the committee's credibility.
The number of voting members in each panel is kept odd to preclude tied votes and ensure a decisive outcome.
Each panel includes at least one independent member from outside the College, in accordance with the international standards recognized for the constitution of ethics committees.
A quorum is met by a majority of members that must include the requisite specialist — the community representative for human research and the veterinarian for animal protocols.
Membership runs for a renewable term of two years, with staggered rotation adopted to preserve the committee's institutional memory.
A member is obliged to recuse themselves from deliberation and voting whenever they are an investigator in, or have an interest in, a protocol under review.
No protocol is granted approval unless its required specialist is present and party to the decision.