Researchers seeking to engage in projects related to Tribal communities and their citizens, lands, and non-human relatives are responsible for understanding and abiding by each Tribal nation’s research laws and review processes. Few studies, however, have described the many diverse forms of Tribal research review systems across the United States (US). This study provides one of the most comprehensive examinations of research review processes administered by Tribal Research Review (...) Boards (TRRBs) in the US. Through a systematic analysis, we consider TRRBs’ online presence, online documentation, and themes across documents, for five entity types: Tribal nations and Tribal consortiums, Tribal colleges and universities, Tribal health organizations, Indian Health Services, and other Tribal organizations. Results include an assessment of online presence for 98 potential TRRBs, identification of 118 publicly available online documents, and analysis of 41 themes across four document types: Tribal research codes and TRRBs’ guidelines, applications, and post-approval documents. Altogether, this research provides a macro-level analysis of the most common types of TRRBs in the US in an effort to increase researchers’ understanding of these important processes as they prepare to ethically engage Tribal communities in research. These results aim to empower Tribal decision makers as they align their TRRBs’ online visibility and documentation with community priorities and strengthen their protections for the rights and wellbeing of their citizens and community. Ultimately, by expanding our knowledge of TRRBs across the US, this contribution seeks to uphold Tribal sovereignty in research and promote ethical approaches to research with Indigenous communities. (shrink)

Rooted in a desire to conduct ethical research with Indigenous People rather than on them, this autoethnographic document-based case study relies on anti-colonial praxis and places the Navajo and non-Navajo perspectives of two researchers navigating the Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board’s (NNHRRB) processes for conducting human subjects research within Kirkness and Barnhardt’s (1991) “Four Rs” framework of respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility. This case analyzes and presents thematic assertions drawn from entries of both authors’ reflective (...) journals they kept while working through the NNHRRB’s process for conducting research. Research findings promise to help other researchers develop research ethics and promote sovereignty for Tribes and Indigenous communities. (shrink)

This essay explores the process and issues related to community collaborative research that involves Native Americans generally, and specifically examines the Navajo Nation’s efforts to regulate research within its jurisdiction. Researchers need to account for both the experience of Native Americans and their own preconceptions about Native Americans when conducting research about Native Americans. The Navajo Nation institutionalized an approach to protecting members of the nation when it took over Institutional Review Board (IRB) responsibilities from the (...) US Indian Health Service (IHS) in 1996. While written regulations for the Navajo Nation IRB are not dissimilar, and in some ways are less detailed than those of the IHS IRB, in practice the Navajo Nation allows less flexibility. Primary examples of this include not allowing expedited review and requiring prepublication review of all manuscripts. Because of its broad mandate, the Navajo Nation IRB may also require review of some projects that would not normally be subject to IRB approval, including investigative journalism and secondary research about Navajo People that does not involve direct data collection from human subjects. (shrink)

Institutional Review Boards and their federal overseers protect human subjects, but this vital work is often dysfunctional despite their conscientious efforts. A cardinal, but unrecognized, explanation is that IRBs are performing a specific function – the management of risk – using a flawed theoretical and practical approach. At the time of the IRB system’s creation, risk management theory emphasized the suppression of risk. Since then, scholars of governance, studying the experience of business and government, have learned that we (...) must distinguish pure from opportunity risks. Pure risks should be suppressed. Some opportunity risks, in contrast, must be accepted if the institution is to meet its goals. Contemporary theory shows how institutions may make these decisions wisely. It also shows how a sound organizational understanding of risk, a proper locus of responsibility, and appropriate institutional oversight all contribute to effective risk management. We can apply this general theory, developed in other contexts, to the problems of the IRB system. Doing so provides a unifying explanation for IRBs’ disparate dysfunctions by spotlighting five related deficiencies in IRB theory and structure. These deficiencies are inability to focus on greater risks, loss of balanced theory, inaccessibility to guidance from senior leadership, unbalanced federal oversight, and inflexibility. These flaws are deeply rooted in the system, and superficial reform cannot resolve them. Congress should overhaul the system to meet contemporary standards of risk management; this would benefit subjects, scientists, and the public that needs the fruits of research. (shrink)

Research Ethics Boards (REBs) at universities are chaired and staffed by researchers who serve to enforce codes of ethics by scrutinizing research proposals. Yet there is widespread dissatisfaction with the REB approval process. This article examines the sources of that dissatisfaction, the place for codes of ethics in the conducting of research, the evidence for risk to research participants as the basis for those codes, and the effectiveness of REBs in protecting research participants. We (...) offer suggestions for how REB chairs, members, and researchers can improve the REB approval process so that it is fair and responsive. (shrink)

BackgroundInstitutional review boards (IRBs) are formally designated to review, approve, and monitor biomedical research. They are responsible for ensuring that researchers comply with the ethical guidelines concerning human research participants. Given that IRBs might face different obstacles that cause delays in their processes or conflicts with investigators, this study aims to report the functions, roles, resources, and review process of IRBs in Saudi Arabia.MethodThis was a cross-sectional self-reported survey conducted from March 2021 to March (...) 2022. The survey was sent to 53 IRB chairpersons and the administration directors (or secretary) across the country through email after receiving verbal consent. The validated survey consisted of eight aspects: (a) organizational aspects, (b) membership and educational training, (c) submission arrangements and materials, (d) minutes, (e) review procedures, (f) communicating a decision, (g) continuing review, and (h) research ethics committee (REC) resources. A total of 200 points indicated optimal IRB functions.ResultsTwenty-six IRBs across Saudi Arabia responded to the survey. Overall, the IRBs in this study scored a total of 150/200 of the points on the self-assessment tool. Relatively newer IRBs (established less than ten years ago) conducted meetings at least once in a month, had annual funding, had more balanced gender representation, tended to score higher than older IRBs. The organizational aspect score was the lowest among all items in the survey (14.3 score difference, p-value < 0.01). The average turnaround time for expedited research from proposal submission to final decision was 7 days, while it was 20.5 days for the full committee review.ConclusionSaudi IRBs performed generally well. However, there is room for focused improvement with respect to extra resources and organizational issues that require closer evaluation and guidance from the regulatory bodies. (shrink)

Background Institutional review board (IRB) expertise is necessarily limited by maintaining a manageable board size. IRBs are therefore permitted by regulation to rely on outside experts for review. However, little is known about whether, when, why, and how IRBs use outside experts.Methods We conducted a national survey of U.S. IRBs to characterize utilization of outside experts. Our study uses a descriptive, cross-sectional design to understand how IRBs engage with such experts and to identify areas where outside expertise is (...) most frequently requested.Results The survey response rate was 18.4%, with 55.4% of respondents reporting their institution’s IRB uses outside experts. Nearly all respondents who reported using outside experts indicated they do so less than once a month, but occasionally each year (95%). The most common method of identifying an outside expert was securing a previously known subject matter expert (83.3%). Most frequently, respondents sought consultation for scientific expertise not held by current members (69.6%). Almost all respondents whose IRBs had used outside experts reported an overall positive impact on the IRB review process (91.5%).Conclusions Just over half of the IRBs in our sample report use of outside experts; among them, outside experts were described as helpful, but their use was infrequent overall. Many IRBs report not relying on outside experts at all. This raises important questions about what type of engagement with outside experts should be viewed as optimal to promote the highest quality review. For example, few respondents sought assistance from a Community Advisory Board, which could address expertise gaps in community perspectives. Further exploration is needed to understand how to optimize IRB use of outside experts, including how to recognize when expertise is lacking, what barriers IRBs face in using outside experts, and perspectives on how outside expert review impacts IRB decision-making and review quality. (shrink)

A growing body of literature critical of ethics review boards has drawn attention to the processes used to determine the ethical merit of research. Citing criticism on the bureaucratic nature of ethics review processes, this literature provides a useful provocation for (re)considering how the ethics review might be enacted. Much of this criticism focuses on how ethics review boards _deliberate,_ with particular attention given to the lack of transparency and opportunities for researcher recourse (...) that characterise ethics review processes. Centered specifically on the conduct of ethics review boards convened within university settings, this paper draws on these inherent criticisms to consider the ways that ethics review boards might enact more communicative and deliberative practices. Outlining a set of principles against which ethics review boards might establish strategies for engaging with researchers and research communities, this paper draws attention to how _Deliberative communication_, _Engagement with researchers_ and the _Distribution of responsibility_ for the ethics review might be enacted in the day-to-day practice of the university human ethics review board. This paper develops these themes via a conceptual lens derived from Habermas’ (The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society, 1984 ) articulation of ‘communicative action’ and Fraser’s (Social Text, 25(26), 56–80, 1990 ) consideration of ‘strong publics’ to cast consideration of the role that human ethics review boards might play in supporting university research cultures. _Deliberative communication_, _Engagement with researchers_ and the _Distribution of responsibility_ provide useful conceptual prompts for considering how ethics review boards might undertake their work. (shrink)

This book is a small handbook designed to give Institutional Review Board (IRB) members the information they need to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects in a way that is both effective and efficient. The chapters of this book are short and to the point. Topic-specific chapters list the criteria IRB members should use to determine how to vote on specific kinds of studies and offer practical advice on what IRB members should do before and during (...) full-committee meetings. (shrink)

In their target article, “The Rise of Citizen Science in Health and Biomedical Research,” Andrea Wiggins and John Wilbanks (2019) summarize some of the emerging ethical issues related to citizen sc...

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans was first developed to establish a standard of practice in research ethics by the three federal agencies responsible for funding institutional research in Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. In 2010, a second edition of the policy, known as the TCPS 2, was released with updated information and expanded coverage of (...) class='Hi'>research ethics issues. According to the TCPS 2, the Agencies’ mandate is “to promote research that is conducted according to the highest ethical standards,” and the TCPS 2 serves as a benchmark for this with respect for human dignity as its underlying value. Research institutions receiving Agency funding are to comply with this policy statement by forming Research Ethics Boards to review all research involving human participants. The intention behind this review requirement is to provide a proportionate assessment of the benefit-to-risk ratio of the research, and in that process, to safeguard “respect for persons”, express a “concern for welfare”, and uphold “justice”. Research may not proceed until ethics approval is granted by an institution’s REB. The current study evaluates REB members’ perspectives on their knowledge of research ethics, and juxtaposes these perceptions with those of researchers. Specifically, we are interested in the extent to which REB members with less experience read the TCPS 2, and whether those with less experience have decreased confidence in their ethics knowledge. (shrink)

Ethics committees like Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees are typically empowered to approve or reject proposed studies, typically conditional on certain conditions or revisions being met. While some have argued this power should be primarily a function of applying clear, codified requirements, most institutions and legal regimes allow discretion for IRBs to ethically evaluate studies, such as to ensure a favourable risk-benefit ratio, fair subject selection, adequate informed consent, and so forth. As a result, ethics (...) committees typically make moral demands on researchers: require them to act in a way the committee considers ethically right or appropriate. This paper argues that moral demands are legitimate only if publicly justifiable; and as a result, committee decisions are subject to a public justification requirement. Ethics committees can permissibly request for more information, changes to the research protocol or that the research is delayed or even stopped only if these demands are publicly justifiable. This latter claim is in turn justified on the basis that moral demands to φ are permissible only if we are in a position to know that the addressee ought to φ and that we are in a position to know a proposition only if it is publicly justifiable. This argument suggests that ethics committees must consciously and explicitly appeal to public reasons in their decision-making. In cases where public reasons cannot be offered, committees would not be permitted to reject a given study or make approval conditional on an amendment. (shrink)

The quality of a research study application sends a distinct signal to the institutional review board (IRB) about the skills, capacities, preparation, communication, experience, and resources of its authors. However, efforts to research and define IRB application quality have been insufficient. Inattention to the quality of an IRB application is consequential because the application precedes IRB review, and perceptions of quality between the two may be interrelated and interdependent. Without a clear understanding of quality, IRBs do (...) not know how to define quality and researchers do not know how to achieve quality. This position has not been systematically studied to date, and future research could provide much-needed empirical validation. This paper lays the conceptual groundwork for future investigation into what constitutes quality in an IRB application. It includes a landscape review of multidisciplinary research on quality, as well as a discussion of quality frameworks analogous to research with human participants that exist in the published literature. It also examines the background and significance of federal research regulations, regulatory burdens, researchers’ regulatory literacy, and the roles and responsibilities of IRB professionals within this ecosystem. (shrink)

Biomedical research today can be generally classified as human-based or nonhuman animal-based, each with separate and distinct review boards that must approve research protocols. Researchers wishing to work with humans or human tissues have become frustrated by the required burdensome approval panel, the Institutional Review Board. However, scientists have found it is much easier to work with the animal-based research review board, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Consequently, animals are used for (...) investigations even when scientists believe these studies should be performed with humans or human tissue. This situation deserves attention from society and more specifically the animal protection and patient advocate communities, as neither patients nor animals are well served by the present situation. (shrink)

With rapidly expanding technological capacity, research has outpaced the existing infrastructure of ethical and regulatory guidance. In the area of incidental findings, this is particularly true.The regulations under which most Institutional Review Boards operate were established over 25 years ago and have not been substantially altered in the intervening years. The technology available today that creates the opportunity for IFs was not conceived of, or considered, in the crafting of those regulations. Therefore, little guidance can be derived (...) directly from these regulations. Rather, aspects of existing ethical guidance and regulations can be adapted to assist IRBs and researchers in dealing with issues surrounding IFs. (shrink)

In medical research, patients are increasingly recognized with ‘lay knowledge’ but their views are poorly researched. The study objective was to investigate patients’ attitudes to medical research. This is in comparison to lay and expert members on ethical review boards, as their task is to evaluate the risk−benefits of research, which are ultimately grounded in attitudes and values. From focus-group interviews with patients suffering from chronic inflammatory diseases, a postal questionnaire was developed and sent to (...) patient members of the Swedish Rheumatism Association and to all ERB board members in Sweden. Response rates were 65 percent and the surveys were conducted in Jan−May 2011. Agreement across the groups included priority for medical research on diagnostic and early detection of disease. A key difference was expert and lay ERB members giving higher priority to basic research/research on lifestyle and prevention, whereas patients prioritized research on daily function. On this significant point, lay members did not share the opinion of this patient group, indicating that they may be poor representatives for patients’ views. These results call for further research: how can patient perspectives be included in ERB discussions and in what way should patients’ values influence the research agenda. (shrink)

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) invests over $37 billion per year in support of research to improve human health. All research funded by NIH that involves human subjects is subject to regulatory oversight, requiring institutions to staff and manage Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). IRB members, chairs, and the many associated human subjects protections oversight professionals who support the work of the IRB must navigate complex federal regulations issued by multiple agencies. This book is the industry (...) standard reference work for the research oversight community, providing comprehensive, understandable interpretations of the regulations, clear descriptions of the ethical principles on which the regulations are based, and practical best-practices guidelines for effectively implementing regulatory oversight. (shrink)

This paper addresses a certain lacuna in moral theological reflec­tion. An institutional review board (IRB) reviews research on human subjects and so represents the institution’s ethical review mechanism for research. The author argues that if an IRB approves a research project that is immoral, it thereby implicates the institution in formal cooperation. The author also argues that numerous ethical concerns are created by current research enterprises—concerns that extend beyond the “usual suspects” of embryonic stem (...) cell research and research using cell lines of illicit origin. The author describes these more subtle issues and shows how IRBs at Catholic hospitals can navigate them. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11.2 (Summer 2011): 257–266. (shrink)

Informed consent is crucial in research, but potential participants may not all speak the same language, posing questions that have not been examined concerning decisions by institutional review boards and research ethics committees’ about the need for researchers to translate consent forms and other study materials. Sixty US IRBs were contacted, and leaders from 34 and an additional 12 members and administrators were interviewed. IRBs face a range of problems about translation of informed consent documents, questionnaires (...) and manuals—what, when and how to translate , why to do so and how to decide. Difficulties can arise about translation of specific words and of broader cultural concepts regarding processes of informed consent and research, especially in the developing world. In these decisions, IRBs weigh the need for autonomy and justice against practical concerns about costs to researchers. At times IRBs may have to compromise between these competing goals. These data, the first to examine when and how IRBs/RECs require researchers to translate materials, thus highlight a range of problems with which these committees struggle, suggesting a need for further normative and empirical investigation of these domains, and consideration of guidelines to help IRBs deal with these tensions. (shrink)

The Internet has been used as a place for and site of an array of research activities. From online ethnographies to public data sets and online surveys, researchers and research regulators have struggled with an array of ethical issues around the conduct of online research. This paper presents a discussion and findings from Buchanan and Ess's study on US-based institutional review boards and the state of internet research ethics.

In Canada, all research conducted by individuals associated with universities must be subjected to review by research ethics boards (REB). Unfortunately, decisions reached by REBs may seriously compromise the integrity of university-based research. In this paper attention will focus on how requirements of REBs and a legal department in four Canadian universities affected response rates to a survey of domestic and international students. It will be shown that in universities in which students were sent a (...) legalistic cover letter to a mail survey, or were required to sign a consent form, lower response rates were achieved than in universities in which students were sent a relatively friendly letter. In turn, lower response rates resulted in: sample characteristics that deviated from population characteristics; a reduction in the possibility of testing research hypotheses; and increased survey costs. As a consequence, it is argued that the unreasonable demands of REBs are seriously compromising the quality of research that can be carried out on Canadian university students. (shrink)

Background: The objective of this research was to review reporting of ethical concerns and community involvement in peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) health. Methods: Text words and indexed vocabulary terms were used to query PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Native Health Database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning AI/AN/NH health published in peer-reviewed journals, followed by a search through reference lists. Each article was abstracted by two independent reviewers; (...) results were discussed until consensus was reached. Results: We identified 107 papers published from 1986 through 2012 that were primarily about AI/AN/NH health or presented findings separately for AI/AN/NH communities. Two reported seeking indigenous reviewer feedback; none reported seeking input from tribes and communities. Approximately 7% reported on institutional review board (IRB) approval of included studies, 5% reported on tribal approval, and 4% referenced the sovereignty of AI/AN tribes. Approximately 63% used evidence from more than one AI/AN/NH population study, and 28% discussed potential benefits to communities from the synthesis research. Conclusions: Reporting of ethics and community involvement are not prominent. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses making community-level inferences may pose risks to communities. Future systematic reviews and meta-analyses should consider ethical and participatory dimensions of research. (shrink)

In order to illuminate the potential harms of MRI research, we present data obtained by examining MRI research proposal files that had been submitted for review to several Canadian Research Ethics Boards. The data reveal that REB review of the studies contained omissions, considerable variability, and sometimes confusion regarding MRI research risks and risk classification. If our findings reflect the general state of REB review of MRI research in Canada and elsewhere, (...) there is a pressing need for REBs to be educated about MRI risks in order to responsibly facilitate the disclosure of these research risks in consent forms and during the consent process. Developing a standard template consent form that discloses MRI research risks might be a way to ensure attention to and disclosure of risks. (shrink)

To show how the case of Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein brings light to the ethical and moral issues raised in Institutional Review Board protocols, we nest an imaginary IRB proposal dated August 1790 by Victor Frankenstein within a discussion of the importance and function of the IRB. Considering the world of science as would have appeared in 1790 when Victor was a student at Ingolstadt, we offer a schematic overview of a fecund moment when advances in comparative anatomy, medical (...) experimentation and theories of life involving animalcules and animal electricity sparked intensive debates about the basic principles of life and the relationship between body and soul. Constructing an IRB application based upon myriad speculations circulating up to 1790, we imagine how Victor would have drawn upon his contemporaries’ scientific work to justify the feasibility of his project, as well as how he might have outlined the ethical implications of his plan to animate life from “dead” tissues. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor failed to consider his creature’s autonomy, vulnerability, and welfare. In this IRB proposal, we show Victor facing those issues of justice and emphasize how the novel can be an important component in courses or workshops on research ethics. Had Victor Frankenstein had to submit an IRB proposal tragedy may have been averted, for he would have been compelled to consider the consequences of his experiment and acknowledge, if not fulfill, his concomitant responsibilities to the creature that he abandoned and left to fend for itself. (shrink)

Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans mandates that all research involving human subjects be reviewed and approved by a research ethics board . We have little evidence on how researchers are dealing with this requirement in multisite studies, which involve more than one REB. We retrospectively examined 22 REB submissions for two minimal-risk, multisite studies in leading Canadian institutions. Most REBs granted expedited review to the studies, while one declared the application to (...) be exempt from review. Time between submission and approval ranged greatly, from four to 546 days. We received a total of 155 REB queries for changes and clarifications, most of which asked for further information, clarification, or additional documents. Less than a third of the REB queries were requests for specific changes, and a vast majority had a very limited impact on the research projects. Institutions also varied broadly in their description of what was required of local principal investigators. We conclude that the organizational and practical challenges these results imply could deter researchers from embarking on multisite research projects, and that recently proposed changes to the TCPS will not solve these problems. (shrink)

University based academic Research Ethics Boards (REB) face the particularly difficult challenge of trying to achieve representation from a variety of disciplines, methodologies and research interests. Additionally, many are currently facing another decision – whether to have students as REB members or not. At Ryerson University, we are uniquely situated. Without a medical school in which an awareness of the research ethics review process might be grounded, our mainly social science and humanities REB must also (...) educate and foster awareness of the ethics review process throughout the academic community. Our Board has had and continues to have students as active members. While there are challenges to having students as Board members, these are clearly outweighed by the advantages, for both the academic community and the future of ethically sound research in the social sciences and humanities. Moreover, the challenges are often based on misconceptions and can be easily overcome through increased education and understanding of the research ethics review process by the academic community at large. The purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss the experiences, advantages and challenges of having students as REB members. The advantages of having students as REB members include the following: (1) Students are the proposed participants in many of our reviewed protocols and student members may illuminate unique issues of participation. (2) Students are active and highly engaged members of the REB. (3) Having students on the REB enhances awareness of research ethics within the University. (4) Student REB members have an opportunity to mentor other students and provide leadership for both undergraduate and graduate students. (5) Students are more vigorously recruited than faculty members and often apply for student positions with enthusiasm and preparation. (6) In creating an atmosphere of excellence in research, engaging students at the beginning of their research career will help in creating tomorrow’s leaders in research and research ethics. The challenges of having students as REB members include the following: (1) Faculty members may be uneasy regarding the prospect of students reviewing protocols. (2) Faculty members may be concerned about confidentiality and respect with students reviewing faculty research protocols. (3) There may be an increased burden for students who serve as members on an REB. (4) There is concern that students will offer less continuous service to the REB. (5) There is a common misconception that students do not have the experience to carry out ethical reviews. While there are challenges from faculty members and others regarding having students as REB members, these challenges are often based on misconceptions about the nature of the REB work and the ethics review process in general. These challenges are also often based on the misconception of the ethics review process as one of peer review and evaluation, instead of a community-based and inclusive process. Having student members is a long-term strategy for both overcoming the misconceptions of the REB as a “necessary evil” and for fostering an awareness of the imperative for ethically sound research in the social sciences and humanities. (shrink)

The community representative plays a very important role in an institutional review board but there is sparse data about their understanding of their role in an IRB. This study was conducted to assess perceptions of community members serving on IRBs of one region in India. A validated questionnaire was administered to community members of IRBs in a prospective cross-sectional study. The questions related to demography, perceptions of their role in the IRB, experiences while serving on the IRBs, difficulties faced (...) by them, and suggestions to improve their contributions. Of the 56 IRBs contacted, all 15 of the public institutions shared details of their community members, while only 26 of the 41 IRBs of private institutions responded. When questioned about why they joined the IRB, one third of the respondents said either that there was “no specific reason” for joining or that they accepted the invitation to serve on the insistence of other members of the IRBs or the head of their institution. All except one felt that community members were needed for optimal functioning. Six participants said that they did not review informed consent documents, and 10 were unaware that their presence was vital for quorum to be met. Twenty-eight said they participated actively in meetings and did not feel intimidated by the presence of clinicians. Twelve reported difficulties in understanding medical terminologies in ICDs. Although the majority of participants were aware about their role in an IRB, some did not review important documents such as ICDs. Restricted participation by private hospital IRBs was a striking observation in our study. There is a need to define eligibility criteria and develop targeted training modules for community members to ensure their effective contribution to effective oversight of clinical research. (shrink)

Genome-wide association studies raise important ethical and regulatory issues. This is particularly true of the current move toward broad sharing of genomic and phenotypic data. Our survey study examined the opinions of professionals involved in human subjects protection regarding genetic research review. The majority indicated that it is important for their institutional review board to offer guidance about developing and using a data repository or biobank that includes genetic data, and also about sharing this data with other (...) investigators. Only one-third of respondents reported that the National Institutes of Health policy regarding data sharing among researchers in genome-wide association studies is clear. Another third answered that they did not know whether this policy is clear. Findings from this study suggest a need for increased education for IRB professionals regarding the existing data sharing policy, collaboration among IRB professionals and researchers to define best practices, and further empirical research into prospective research participants’ information needs and preferences in the context of wide data sharing. (shrink)

A number of unique problems plague human research protection efforts at United States State and Territorial Departments of Health. The first problem is related to the number of Institutional Review Boards operated by and Federalwide Assurances held by DOHs. The lack of these two essential regulatory human research protection program mechanisms points to a possible inadequacy of infrastructure at DOHs for protecting human subjects. The second and third problems are related to the use and interpretation of (...) research protection laws and regulations at DOHs. Parsing public health activities into research or practice can be vexing and likely produces variability in how individual DOHs make the determination between research and practice and the outcomes of such decisions for the same or similar projects. A related problem is that DOH or Institutional Review Board officials might misclassify public health practice activities as research, which can have costly, adverse consequences. (shrink)

The Institutional Review Board is a committee of the institution responsible for carrying out the institution's responsibilities for the protection of human research subjects. Since it is a local committee, most of the complaints about the IRB can be resolved locally provided it is borne in mind that the IRB is the champion not only of the human research subject but also of the investigator. National or regional cooperative research protocols present problems that are not insurmountable.

BackgroundInstitutional Review Boards (IRBs) play a vital role in safeguarding the rights and interests of both research participants and researchers. However, China initiated the establishment of its own IRB system relatively late in comparison to international standards. Despite commendable progress, there is a pressing need to strengthen the organizational capacity building of Chinese IRBs. Hence, this study aims to analyze the key factors driving the enhancement of organizational capacity within these committees.MethodThe cross-sectional survey for this research (...) was conducted from July 2020 to January 2022. Following the statistical grouping based on the "2020 China Health Statistical Yearbook", a systematic investigation of IRBs in various provinces of China was carried out. In-depth interviews and questionnaire surveys were conducted with the chairpersons and administrative executives (or secretaries) of highly cooperative IRBs. Subsequently, data were collected from 107 IRBs. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was employed as the method to analyze the factors influencing the organizational capacity of medical ethics committees and explore the diverse combinations of these factors.ResultsThrough a singular necessary condition analysis, the variable "protection of rights and interests" emerges as a critical factor contributing to the robust construction of Institutional Review Boards Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Conversely, the variables of "lack of member ability, absence of review process, and deficiency in the supervision mechanism" collectively constitute a sufficient condition leading to weaker IRB construction. The state analysis uncovers three interpretation modes: member ability-oriented (M1), system process-oriented mode (M2), and resource system-oriented mode (M3).ConclusionsThe results of this study are effectively explicable using the "Triangular Force" model proposed for the hypothesis of IRBs' organizational capacity, which provides a solid foundation for the development of organizational capabilities in IRBs. To enhance the organizational capacity of IRBs in China, it is imperative to elevate the competence of committee members and strengthen team development. This can be achieved by establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework and refining procedural protocols. Moreover, clarifying the organizational structure and optimizing resource allocation are essential steps in bolstering the overall organizational capabilities of these committees. (shrink)

Few studies in sub-Saharan Africa evaluate Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) capacity. The study aims to explore the composition of IRBs, training, and challenges experienced in the ethics review processes by members of research institutions and universities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Our findings indicate that most IRBs members were trained on research ethics and good clinical practice. However, majority perceived the trainings as basic. IRB members faced several challenges including: investigators wanting rapid review; time pressure; (...) investigators not following checklists; limited expertise in reviewing clinical trials, studies on genetics, and traditional medicine; lack of IRB offices for administrative work; competing tasks; limited staffing and the lack of a standardized review system. There is need for advanced training on research ethics to meet the evolving research needs. In addition, investments in IRBs are needed in terms of funding, and physical and human resources in Addis Ababa and Ethiopia in general. (shrink)

ABSTRACTGiven the ethical controversies concerning HIV vaccine trials , we aimed to understand through an exploratory study how members of institutional review boards in the United States and research ethics committees in South Africa view issues concerning the process and content of reviews of these studies. We mailed packets of 20 questionnaires to 12 US IRB chairs and administrators and seven REC chairs to distribute to their members. We received 113 questionnaires . In both countries, members tended (...) to be white males with advanced academic degrees. Compared to the US, SA members called for ‘major changes’ in HVT protocols more frequently , and were less likely to think that HVT participants understood risks and benefits or informed consent forms . In both countries, members were divided on several critical issues , but agreed that they needed more training. Of the SA respondents, 40% reported that they were ‘self‐taught’ in ethics. This study, the first we know of to offer quantitative data comparing US vs. non‐US IRBs/RECs, thus suggests key similarities and differences , along with needs for education. These initial exploratory data in this area have important implications for IRBs, RECs, policy‐makers and scholars concerning future practice, training, policy, and investigations in research ethics, and prevention and treatment of HIV and other diseases in the developing world and elsewhere. (shrink)

Although well established in developed countries, Ethics review boards in the academia, and specifically for social and behavioral sciences (SBS) research, is a relatively new, and still a controversy inducing endeavor. This study explores the establishment and functioning of ERBs in Israeli academia, serving as a case study for the challenges and progress made in ensuring ethical research practices in non-medical related spheres. A purposeful sample of 46 participants was selected, comprising ERB current or past members (...) and SBS researchers, who each interacted extensively with ERB’s evaluation processes. The participants came from all eight research universities of Israel, as well as seven large public and private academic colleges. Open, semi structured In-depth interviews were conducted in order to facilitate a critical reflective stance among the various participants, exploring their experiences, behaviors and the meanings they assign to ERB processes. Our research revealed two major themes. The first is the developmental trajectories in the construction processes of ERBs in Israel, comprised of the following stages: Initiation, expansion, opposition, and acceptance and assimilation. The second was a typology of participation throughout the ERBs’ construction process. Inspired by Merton’s strain theory, this typology includes conformists, ritualists, ideologists, control-freaks, and insurgents. The findings expose a unique perspective into the initiation, establishment, and development of ERBs, which can shed light on the role of ERBs in general, as well as point out how resistance to ERBs, as well as the different reasons for championing them, affected not only ERBs form and their legitimacy, but also their interaction with researchers. (shrink)

Ethics review committees have become a common institution in English-speaking research communities, and are now increasingly being adopted in a variety of research environments. In light of existing debates on the aptness of ethics review boards for assessing research work in the social sciences, this article investigates the ways in which researchers navigate issues of research ethics in the absence of a formal review procedure or of an ethics review board. Through (...) the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data, the article questions the overall utility of ethics review boards. Highlighting the importance of space for sharing, the authors argue for the development of a new type of structure that takes into account researchers’ ‘ethos of responsibility’ as an adequate ethical compass for research in the social sciences. (shrink)

The welfare and protection of human subjects is critical to the integrity of clinical investigation and research. Institutional review boards were thus set up to be impartial reviewers of research protocols in clinical research. Their main role is to stand between the investigator and her human subjects in order to ensure that the welfare of human subjects are protected. While there is much literature on the conflicts of interest faced by investigators and researchers in clinical (...) investigations, an area that is less explored is CIs that may affect members of IRBs during the institutional ethics review of clinical investigations. This article examines the notion of CIs in clinical research and attempts to develop a framework for a clearer and more balanced approach to identifying CIs that may influence members of IRBs and impede their independence. It will also apply the proposed framework to demonstrate how IRBs possess, or at least may appear to possess, forms of financial CIs and non-financial CIs. The proper identification and management of these CIs is critical to preserving the integrity of clinical investigations and achieving the primary aim of human subjects protection. (shrink)

Research Ethics Boards (REBs) provide oversight for Canadians that research projects will comply with standards of ethics if the studies are carried out as described in the documents that have been approved. While REBs have traditionally been affiliated with institutions such as universities and hospitals, a number of factors - including the increased volume of research being conducted outside academic centres - have resulted in the establishment of some private or independent REBs. This, in turn, has (...) raised concerns about the credibility of REBs in the private sector and their capacity to handle issues around conflict of interest. This Breakout Session was an opportunity to hear the perspectives of people associated with institutional and private REBs and examine perceived problems with boards in the private sector, scrutinize theoretical and structural differences between types of REBs, and look at whether or not there is room for both institutional and private boards in the Canadian research review landscape. (shrink)

Introduction: Variation across research ethics boards in conditions placed on access to medical records for research purposes raises concerns around negative impacts on research quality and on human subject protection, including privacy.Aim: To study variation in REB consent requirements for retrospective chart review and who may have access to the medical record for data abstraction.Methods: Thirty 90-min face-to-face interviews were conducted with REB chairs and administrators affiliated with faculties of medicine in Canadian universities, using structured (...) questions around a case study with open-ended responses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded manually.Results: Fourteen sites required individual patient consent for the study to proceed as proposed. Three indicated that their response would depend on how potentially identifying variables would be managed. Eleven sites did not require consent. Two suggested a notification and opt-out process. Most stated that consent would be required if identifiable information was being abstracted from the record. Among those not requiring consent, there was substantial variation in recognising that the abstracted information could potentially indirectly re-identify individuals. Concern over access to medical records by an outside individual was also associated with requirement for consent. Eighteen sites required full committee review. Sixteen allowed an external research assistant to abstract information from the health record.Conclusions: Large variation was found across sites in the requirement for consent for research involving access to medical records. REBs need training in best practices for protecting privacy and confidentiality in health research. A forum for REB chairs to confidentially share concerns and decisions about specific studies could also reduce variation in decisions. (shrink)

Research Ethics Boards (REBs) provide oversight for Canadians that research projects will comply with standards of ethics if the studies are carried out as described in the documents that have been approved. While REBs have traditionally been affiliated with institutions such as universities and hospitals, a number of factors - including the increased volume of research being conducted outside academic centres - have resulted in the establishment of some private or independent REBs. This, in turn, has (...) raised concerns about the credibility of REBs in the private sector and their capacity to handle issues around conflict of interest. This Breakout Session was an opportunity to hear the perspectives of people associated with institutional and private REBs and examine perceived problems with boards in the private sector, scrutinize theoretical and structural differences between types of REBs, and look at whether or not there is room for both institutional and private boards in the Canadian research review landscape. (shrink)

Given ICH-GCP’s role in shaping IRB standards in most jurisdictions, clarifying the function and definition of nonscientific members is crucial. ICH-GCP 3.2.1 requires a nonscientific member but its definition focuses on who they are not rather than who they are, creating ambiguity and varied interpretations. This paper reviews the idea of nonscientific members of the IRB to understand their definitions and roles based on current literature. This is because, despite the ICH-GCP’s mandate, recent research is scarce. Our review (...) identifies that in the current literature, various definitions and roles are ascribed to nonscientific members, resulting in a lack of clarity. Following our thematic analysis, we highlight two main interpretations of the nonscientific member’s definition: one as a distinct perspective from scientific members and another as an embodiment of “ordinariness” to minimize bias. In addition, we also highlight three primary roles: reviewing consent forms, representing public and participant interests, and providing oversight. Some findings may not align with current IRB practices, and without clear definitions, adherence to ICH-GCP guidelines may be inconsistent. (shrink)