Research ethics and Institutional Review Boards: The influence of moral constraints on emotion research

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 67-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sontag

Researchers in the twenty-first century face a set of challenges unknown to researchers a half century ago—the need to justify the moral acceptability of their research methods through formal review processes. However, the role that moral constraints play in the development and demise of scientific theories has largely gone unappreciated. The rise of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in the 1960s compounded the impact of moral constraints on scientific research and on the theories that develop out of such highly monitored research. To demonstrate the effects of moral constraints on scientific theory and research, this paper offers a history and analysis of the interaction between evolving moral standards and twentieth century emotion theory. Recommendations regarding IRB reform are also reviewed. The paper concludes by arguing that, while appropriate IRB reform is important, it cannot eliminate the need for careful reflection on the broader forces that shape scientific practice and understanding.

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 67-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sontag

Researchers in the twenty-first century face a set of challenges unknown to researchers a half century ago—the need to justify the moral acceptability of their research methods through formal review processes. However, the role that moral constraints play in the development and demise of scientific theories has largely gone unappreciated. The rise of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in the 1960s compounded the impact of moral constraints on scientific research and on the theories that develop out of such highly monitored research. To demonstrate the effects of moral constraints on scientific theory and research, this paper offers a history and analysis of the interaction between evolving moral standards and twentieth century emotion theory. Recommendations regarding IRB reform are also reviewed. The paper concludes by arguing that, while appropriate IRB reform is important, it cannot eliminate the need for careful reflection on the broader forces that shape scientific practice and understanding.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P Diamond ◽  
Esther Eisenberg ◽  
Hao Huang ◽  
Christos Coutifaris ◽  
Richard S Legro ◽  
...  

Background/aims: Timely review of research protocols by institutional review boards leads to more rapid initiation of clinical trials, which is critical to expeditious translation from bench to bedside. This observational study examined the impact of a single institutional review board on time and efforts required to initiate clinical trials by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. Methods: Collection of data from the same six main clinical sites for three current clinical trials and two past clinical trials, including time from institutional review board submission to approval, pages submitted, consent form length, number of required attachments, other regulatory requirements, order of review at central or local sites, and language in documents at individual participating sites. Results from two past clinical trials were also included. Results: While time required for actual institutional review board submission’s review and initial approval was reduced with use of a single institutional review board for multicenter trials (from a mean of 66.7–24.0 days), total time was increased (to a mean of 111.2 or 123.3 days). In addition to single institutional review board approval, all institutions required local approval of some components (commonly consent language and use of local language), which varied considerably. The single institutional review board relied on local institutions for adding or removing personnel, conflict of interest review, and auditing of activities. Conclusion: A single institutional review board reduced time for initial review and approval of protocols and informed consents, although time for the entire process was increased, as individual institutions retained oversight of components of required regulatory review. In order to best achieve the National Institute of Health’s goals for improved efficiency in initiation and conduct of multisite clinical research, greater coordination with local institutional review boards is key to streamlining and accelerating initiation of multisite clinical research.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 481-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomasz P. Stryjewski ◽  
Brian T. Kalish ◽  
Benjamin Silverman ◽  
Lisa Soleymani Lehmann

Author(s):  
Marvin R. Goldfried ◽  
John E. Pachankis ◽  
Brien J. Goodwin

In this chapter, the authors trace the history of psychotherapy integration from the first attempts at rapprochement in the early twentieth century to the recent developments in the twenty-first century. The authors briefly review major contributions to psychotherapy integration from the 1930s to the 1950s, and then focus on rapprochement beginning in the 1960s through the present. In addition to outlining conceptual and theoretical advances, the authors describe structural developments such as societies, journals, and conferences that have facilitated continued research and dissemination of various models of integration. Finally, the impact of ever-changing research, practice, and social climates on rapprochement is discussed.


1980 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradford Gray ◽  
Robert A. Cooke

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Steven Ruggles

AbstractQuantitative historical analysis in the United States surged in three distinct waves. The first quantitative wave occurred as part of the “New History” that blossomed in the early twentieth century and disappeared in the 1940s and 1950s with the rise of consensus history. The second wave thrived from the 1960s to the 1980s during the ascendance of the New Economic History, the New Political History, and the New Social History, and died out during the “cultural turn” of the late twentieth century. The third wave of historical quantification—which I call the revival of quantification—emerged in the second decade of the twenty-first century and is still underway. I describe characteristics of each wave and discuss the historiographical context of the ebb and flow of quantification in history.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document