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.

The Institutional Review Board and Protecting Human Subjects: 10 Frequently Asked Questions

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-295
Author(s):  
Sheldon Zink ◽  
Laura Kimberly ◽  
Stacey Wertlieb
Keyword(s):  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Institutional Review Board Approval ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Human Research Subjects ◽  
Review Boards

It is essential that anyone involved in research involving human subjects be familiar with the purpose and role of institutional review boards. Institutional review boards are designed, first and foremost, to protect human research subjects by overseeing the implementation of federal regulations regarding protection of human subjects. The federal government requires institutional review board approval for any human subject research that receives federal funding, and many scholarly journals require proof of institutional review board approval of the research before publication. In this article, the answers to 10 frequently asked questions about the role of institutional review boards highlight the important contributions made by institutional review boards to the conduct of ethically sound research. The aim is to generate a working knowledge of the institutional review board's function that can be used by every researcher contemplating working with human research subjects. This is the first in a series of 3 articles examining common issues in research ethics.

IRB Creep: Federal Regulations Protecting Human Research Subjects and Increasing Instructors' Responsibilities

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane A. Riordan ◽  
Michael P. Riordan
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Accounting Faculty ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Human Research Subjects ◽  
Review Boards

ABSTRACT: Federal regulations require oversight of federally sponsored research involving human subjects. Universities have responded by forming Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Although these regulations only apply to federally funded projects, universities have extended the oversight to include all projects involving human subjects. From our own experience, we observe that not all accounting faculty are aware of their responsibilities to their local boards. The sanctions for failing to follow required procedures depend on the infraction, and range from an order to cease work on the project to termination of university service for the faculty member and expulsion for the student. This report helps accounting faculty understand how the review process may affect their role as instructors and serves as encouragement to them to become familiar with the requirements of local review boards.

Educational Research and the Protection of Human Subjects

1977 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 477-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin S. DuVal
Keyword(s):  
Educational Research ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Legal Restrictions ◽  
Research On Human Subjects ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects ◽  
Judicial Recognition ◽  
Review Boards

Educational research is increasingly subject to legal restrictions designed for the protection of human subjects of research. In this article the author discusses legal restrictions–both in the courts and under HEW regulations–on educational research, comparing these restrictions with those on biomedical research. He finds that although educational research in particular instances may give rise to suits for damages for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of psychological distress, the legal issues relating to educational research will most often be resolved in proceedings before institutional review boards charged by HEW with the responsibility for passing upon proposals to conduct research on human subjects. He argues that the interests protected in proceedings before institutional review boards are not limited to those that have received judicial recognition in suits for damages. The author finds that the requirement that the informed consent of subjects be obtained presents difficult issues for educational research. He notes in particular the problems presented by research proposals that as an element of the research design contemplate the observation of subjects without their knowledge and the use of children as research subjects.

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.

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.

Litigation in Clinical Research: Malpractice Doctrines versus Research Realities

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 474-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Haavi Morreim
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects ◽  
Clinical Research Trials

Human clinical research trials, by which corporations, universities, and research scientists bring new drugs, devices, and procedures into the practice and marketplace of medicine, have become a huge business. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) doubled its spending over the past five years, while in the private sector the top twenty pharmaceutical companies have more than doubled their investment in research and development over a roughly comparable period. To date, some twenty million Americans have participated in clinical research trials that now are as common in the private practice setting as in academia.For many years human clinical trials received relatively little public attention. In the wake of several well-publicized research abuses, Congress created in 1974 the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to formulate recommendations to protect human research subjects. The Commission’s 1979 Belmont Report helped to guide the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) that review the ethics of federally funded research.

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.

Currents in Contemporary Ethics

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Privacy Protection ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Privacy Rule ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Common ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects ◽  
Privacy Issues

For nearly twenty-five years, federal regulation of privacy issues in research involving human subjects was the primary province of the federal rule for Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule). As of April 14, 2003, the compliance date for the Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), however, the Common Rule and the Privacy Rule jointly regulate research privacy. Although, in theory, the Privacy Rule is intended to complement the Common Rule, there are several areas in which the rules diverge. In some instances the inconsistencies result in gaps in privacy protection; in other instances the inconsistencies result in added burdens on researchers without additional privacy protections. In all instances, the lack of harmonization of these rules has created confusion, frustration, and misunderstanding by researchers, research subjects, and institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, I review the major provisions of the Privacy Rule for research, explain the areas in which the Privacy Rule and Common Rule differ, and conclude that the two rules should be revised to promote consistency and maximize privacy protections while minimizing the burdens on research.

Institutional Review Boards Evaluate Good Science: Template for Success

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-125
Author(s):  
W. Newton Suter ◽  
Paula M. Suter
Keyword(s):  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Scientific Validity ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Scientific Rigor ◽  
Scientific Merit ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Review Boards

The focus of this article is scientific merit and how to embed this information in a compelling but brief way into research proposals. We begin by discussing why scientific validity is an important focus of an Institutional Review Board and describe what is scientifically meritorious (good science). We end with a simple checklist and practical template that can be used to strengthen the scientific rigor of proposed research apart from its compliance with safeguards for human subjects’ rights and welfare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document