Publication Cover
Accountability in Research
Ethics, Integrity and Policy
Volume 15, 2008 - Issue 3
122
Views
12
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

The Expanding Purview: Institutional Review Boards and the Review of Human Subjects Research

Pages 188-204 | Published online: 08 Jul 2008
 

Abstract

The implications of the institutional review board (IRB) system's growing purview are examined. Among the issues discussed are whether IRBs are censoring research and whether the IRB review process fundamentally alters the research that is being conducted. The intersection between IRB review and free speech is also explored. In general, it is argued that the review system for human subjects research (HSR) should be modified in order to limit the scope of IRB review.

Notes

1For the purposes of this article, the issue of whether IRBs should review non-federally funded research will not be explored.

2A pejorative term often used to refer to the IRB system's growing purview; for example, see the Center for Advanced Study's White Paper on the IRB system (Gunsalus et al., 2006).

3Another key factor is whether the form of research is specifically delineated as qualifying for expedited review under federal guidelines (CitationHHS, 1998).

4According to a survey by De Vries, DeBruin, and Goodgame, “[…] nearly 70% of boards have 30% or more of their members drawn from biology and medicine” (CitationDe Vries et al., 2004, p. 355). The survey had a sample size of 87 IRBs.

5Of course, the analogy between peer review and IRB review is not exact since each respective process focuses on different dimensions of research. The procedure for selecting peer reviewers and IRB members is also not equivalent. Yet the point should not be lost that in order for both types of review to function well, expertise with regard to the type of research being scrutinized is a vital element.

6But this is not necessarily a bad thing if human subjects are protected from harm.

7One thing that may distinguish the different projects is the source of funding, but many IRBs already review research that is not supported by federal funds.

8A likely reason why consent forms have become overly technical and complicated is due to concerns about legal liability. As a by-product, many of the consent forms that result are fairly opaque and cumbersome.

9According to one report, “most oral history interviewing projects” are exempt from IRB review but not all (CitationOral History, 2004). This leads to confusion regarding which ones still need to be examined by an IRB.

10One place where this type of approach has been articulated is within the Illinois White Paper (Gunsalus et al., 2006, pp. 21–22).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.