Abstract
IRB permission is required for most research with people, including research regulated by the FDA or funded by the NIH. Typically, the scientist or scholar submits a proposal; the IRB approves it, rejects it, or returns it with instructions for changes. Most IRBs are situated in hospitals, government agencies, and institutions of learning (including universities, medical schools, and research institutes); the rest are independent, either nonprofit or for profit. All follow the same rules.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274:1355–60.
Berrett D. IRB overreach? Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/18/brown_professor_sues_university_for_barring_her_from_using_her_research (18 Mar 2011).
Brendel DH, Miller FG. A plea for pragmatism in clinical research ethics. Am J Bioeth. 2008;8(4):24–31.
Calabresi G. Reflections on medical experimentation in humans. Daedalus. 1969;98:387–405.
Cowan DH. Human experimentation: the review process in practice. Case West Reserve Law Rev. 1974;25:533–64.
Curran WJ. Governmental regulation of the use of human subjects in medical research: the approach of two federal agencies. Daedalus. 1969;98(2):542–94.
Eisenberg L. The social imperatives of medical research. Science. 1977;198(4322):1105–10.
Faden RR, Kass NE, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent Rep. 2013;43(s1):S16–27.
Frankel MS. The public health service guidelines governing research involving human subjects: an analysis of the policy-making process [PhD dissertation]. George Washington University; 1972.
Halikas JA. v the University of Minnesota, United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Fourth Division, 4-94-CV-448 (1996).
Halpern S. Hybrid design, systemic rigidity: institutional dynamics in human research oversight. Regul Gov. 2008;2(1):85–102.
Icenogle DL. IRBs, conflict and liability: will we see IRBs in court? or is it when? Clin Med Res. 2003;1(1):63–8.
Jonas H. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus. 1969;98(2):219–47.
Katz J, Capron AM, Glass E. Experimentation with human beings: the authority of the investigator, subject, professions, and state in the human experimentation process. New York: Russell Sage; 1972.
Klitzman RL. Institutional review board community members: who are they, what do they do, and whom do they represent? Acad Med. 2012a;87(7):975–81.
Levine RJ. Reflections on chairing an institutional review board. In: Bankert EA, Amdur RJ, editors. Institutional review board: management and function. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2006b. p. 61–3.
Looney, Billy Ryan et al v. Sheila D. Moore, Ferdinant Urthaler, MD, Individual Members of the University of Alabama Institutional Review Board, and Waldemar A. Carlo, MD. District Court of Northern Alabama (2013).
Mazur DJ. Evaluating the science and ethics of research on humans: a guide for IRB members. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007.
Menikoff J, Richards EP. What the doctor didn’t say: the hidden truth about medical research. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants—volume I. report and recommendations of the national bioethics advisory commission. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 2001.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0012; 1978.
Nelson DK. IRB member conflict of interest. In: Amdur R, Bankert EA, editors. Institutional review board member handbook. 3rd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2011. p. 103–13.
Ramsey P. The patient as person: explorations in medical ethics. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1970.
Rhodes R. De minimis risk: a suggestion for a new category of research risk. In: Cohen IG, Lynch HF, editors. Human subjects research regulation: perspectives on the future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014. p. 31–44.
Shamoo AE, Khin-Maung-Gyi FA. Ethics of the use of human subjects in research: practical guide. New York: Garland Science; 2002.
Stark L. Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press; 2012.
Wertheimer A. Rethinking the ethics of clinical research: widening the lens. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Whitney, S.N. (2016). Ethics and the IRB. In: Balanced Ethics Review. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20705-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20705-6_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20704-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20705-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)