Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

IRB Process

  • Chapter
Balanced Ethics Review

  • 557 Accesses

Abstract

We move now from lofty theory to pedestrian practice. This chapter focuses on the process your committee uses; later chapters address the science and scholarship you review. I use the phrase “science and scholarship” as shorthand for the major branches of knowledge under review: biomedical science, largely conducted in hospitals and medical schools, and the social sciences as found in colleges and universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 14.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Armstrong R, Gelsthorpe L, Crewe B. From paper ethics to real world research: supervising ethical reflexivity when taking risks in research with the ‘Risky’ (online version). In: Lumsden K, Winter A, editors. Reflexivity in criminological research: experiences with the powerful and the powerless. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron J. Some fallacies of human-subjects protection, and some solutions. Cortex. 2015;65:246–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp TL. Autonomy and consent. In: Miller FG, Wertheimer A, editors. The ethics of consent: theory and practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Chalmers I. Regulation of therapeutic research is compromising the interests of patients. Int J Pharm Med. 2007;21(6):395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J. HRPP blog. 2010. http://hrpp.blogspot.com. Accessed December 11 2010.

  • Davis AL, Hurley EA. Setting the stage: the past and present of human subjects research regulations. In: Cohen IG, Lynch HF, editors. Human subjects research regulation: perspectives on the future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014. p. 9–26.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg L. The social imperatives of medical research. Science. 1977;198(4322):1105–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald MH, Phillips PA, Yule E. The research ethics review process and ethics review narratives. Ethics Behav. 2006;16(4):377–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getz KA. Clinical trial insights frustration with IRB bureaucracy & despotism. Appl Clin Trials. 2011;20(1):26–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadjistavropoulos T, Smythe WE. Elements of risk in qualitative research. Ethics Behav. 2001;11(2):163–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halikas JA. v the University of Minnesota, United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Fourth Division, 4-94-CV-448 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klitzman RL. The ethics police?: IRBs’ views concerning their power. PLoS One. 2011b;6(12):e28773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantos JD. Research in wonderland: does “minimal risk” mean whatever an institutional review board says it means? Am J Bioeth. 2007b;7(3):11–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine RJ. Ethics and regulation of clinical research. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Urban & Schwarzenberg; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine RJ. Empirical research to evaluate ethics committees’ burdensome and perhaps unproductive policies and practices: a proposal. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006a;1(3):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin P. Time to cut regulations that protect only regulators. Nature. 2001;414:379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell-Einhorn M, Ellis GB. Human subject protections in the United States: perspectives from the Office for Protection from Research Risks. J Biolaw Bus. 1998;1(2):36–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber JE, Tolich MB. Planning ethically responsible research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith T. Ethics in medical research: a handbook of good practice. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark L. Morality in science: how research is evaluated in the age of human subjects regulation [PhD dissertation]. Princeton University; 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark L. Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weijer C, Emanuel EJ. Ethics: protecting communities in biomedical research. Science. 2000;289(5482):1142–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Simon N. Whitney MD, JD (Associate Professor and William O’Donnell and Regina O’Donnell Chair in Family Medicine, Associate Professor)

Authors
  1. Simon N. Whitney MD, JD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Whitney, S.N. (2016). IRB Process. In: Balanced Ethics Review. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20705-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20705-6_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20704-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20705-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation