scholarly journals A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (29) ◽  
pp. e2024570118
Author(s):  
Edward Asiedu ◽  
Dean Karlan ◽  
Monica Lambon-Quayefio ◽  
Christopher Udry
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Intellectual Freedom ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Institutional Review

Ethics in social science experimentation and data collection are often discussed but rarely articulated in writing as part of research outputs. Although papers typically reference human subjects research approvals from relevant institutional review boards, most recognize that such boards do not carry out comprehensive ethical assessments. We propose a structured ethics appendix to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, role of the researcher, potential harms to participants and nonparticipants, conflicts of interest, intellectual freedom, feedback to participants, and foreseeable misuse of research results. We discuss each of these and some of the norms and challenging situations of each. We believe that discussing such issues explicitly in appendices of papers, even if briefly, will serve two purposes: more complete communication of ethics can improve discussions of papers and can clarify and improve the norms themselves.

Symposium on Human Subjects Research: Redux

2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-360
Author(s):  
Jesse A. Goldner
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Short Run ◽  
Research Protections ◽  
Review Boards

Two years ago, the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics published volume 28, number 4, devoted to a symposium entitled Human Subjects Research and the Role of Institutional Review Boards - Conflicts and Challenges. I had the good fortune to be asked to serve as editor of that issue. In her introduction to the symposium, the then editor-in-chief of the journal, Ellen Wright Clayton, observed that the country is currently undergoing a major reexamination of how biomedical research is conducted. While that reexamination has continued in the interim, some very recent events raise questions about the extent to which this will continue, at least in the short run, with equal vigor. The intervening years have witnessed a variety of new directions and events. The federal Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), directed by Dr. Greg Koski, who wrote a brief commentary for the last symposium,L has taken a new direction, strongly stressing the need for institutions and their institutional review boards ORBS) to engage in extensive educational and quality improvement efforts with both researchers and their own member.

What the ANPRM Missed: Additional Needs for IRB Reform

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 390-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Lidz ◽  
Suzanne Garverich
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Limited Time ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The World

The federal Common Rule, which governs the conduct of research with human subjects, specifies the criteria and procedures by which Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) should review such research. Although there is wide agreement that IRBs, or Research Ethics Committees as they are called in most of the world, are essential to assuring that human subjects research meets common standards of ethics, IRBs have always come under considerable criticism. Some have critiqued IRBs for using important resources inefficiently, including the large amount of time researchers put into submitting applications, modifications, and reports and delaying the start of data collection within the limited time that grants and contracts provide. Others have critiqued the inconsistency of review of multi-site projects.

scholarly journals Characterizing Current Attitudes and Practices for Human Subject Safety in Studies Involving Pupil Dilation

2020 ◽  
pp. 155626462096898
Author(s):  
Jacob Szpernal ◽  
Joseph Carroll ◽  
Ryan Spellecy ◽  
Jane A. Bachman Groth
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Vision Research ◽  
Human Subject ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Pupil Dilation ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
Institutional Review

Standards in pupil dilation practices regarding the safety of human subjects are not present in vision research despite the potential for significant adverse effects. We developed two surveys to examine current practices around pupil dilation among vision researchers and individuals associated with oversight of human subjects research. While both groups note an absence of adverse events associated with pupil dilation, vision researcher practices differed with informed consent use and measures taken to minimize complications. For Institutional Review Boards, general risk assumption associated with dilation was not unanimous and there was a lack of specific guidance available to researchers for minimizing risk. These results uncover the need for standardized practices regarding pupil dilation in human subjects research.

Ethical Conduct of Clinical Trials, Institutional Review Boards, Informed Consent, and Financial Conflicts of Interest

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian B. Ramers
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Us ◽  
Guidelines And Recommendations ◽  
Study Designs

Ethics and conflicts of interest are important considerations when planning and carrying out research. It is the role of the institutional review board to weigh these against protection of the research subject when evaluating research proposals. The ethical considerations when performing research include basic ethical principles (e.g., autonomy, confidentiality, non-maleficence, informed consent, beneficence, justice, and utility), as well as nuances such as appropriate study designs, investigator conflict of interests, and bias in all its forms. To help guide clinicians, a number of professional and governmental organizations have published guidelines and recommendations on various aspects of clinical research (e.g., the American Medical Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the US Food and Drug Administration).

The Role of the Institutional Review Board in Research Involving Human Subjects

1983 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 828-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Bosso
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Research ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Basic Composition ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Policies And Procedures

Concern with the rights and welfare of human experimental research subjects has given rise to the evolution of institutional review boards. This article describes the basic composition and purposes of these boards, as well as the federal regulations by which they are governed. Since many of these regulations are open to interpretation, the policies and procedures of one such board are included to represent an example of how these regulations are interpreted and applied.

Online Research and Obtaining Human Subjects/IRB Approvals

2015 ◽  
pp. 261-276
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Bates ◽  
Ben Birch
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Research ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Review Boards

The development of digital computing and the growth of the Internet have opened up new opportunities to engage in online research. These online research practices involving human subjects, often involving relatively new technologies, can create tension between the online investigator and the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) who are required to review and approve such research prior to data collection. This chapter aims to reduce this tension by discussing the associated ethics issues and applicable federal regulations, identifying specific concerns from the perspective of IRBs, and offering suggestions as to how best to address these concerns in applications in a way that can hopefully serve both the researcher and the review board.

Ethical Conduct of Clinical Trials, Institutional Review Boards, Informed Consent, and Financial Conflicts of Interest

2019 ◽  
pp. 545-548
Author(s):  
Christian B. Ramers
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Ethical Conduct ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Essential Components ◽  
Financial Conflicts Of Interest

Describe the essential components of the ethical conduct of research, the role of the institutional review board, the process of informed consent, the potential areas of conflict of interest for clinicians participating in research, and other ethical issues related to research in HIV medicine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document