A Survey Regarding the University of North Dakota Institutional Review Board: Data, Attitudes, and Perceptions

Ferraro, F. Richard; Szigeti, Elvira; Dawes, Kenneth; Pan, Shihua

doi:10.1080/00223989909599740

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The list of complaints about IRBs includes superficial and hasty reviews of protocols, favoritism toward protocols of selected colleagues, leniency in the hopes of receiving similar consideration when their own proposals come up for review, conflicts of interest, and poor training (Ferraro, Szigeti, Dawes, & Pan, 1999;Hayes, Hayes, & Dykstra, 1995;Palca, 1996;Silberner, 1998). Concerns raised at the Summit of Psychological Science Societies (Cohen, 1999) included censorship of research topics, harassment of certain researchers, lack of accountability, biases, ineffective communication with investigators, lack of knowledge about research, inability to accurately assess research risks, lack of appeal mechanisms, inconsistency, wide variations in the interpretation of federal regulations, and an overweening focus on protecting participants in ways that unnecessarily diminish scientific validity.…”

Section: Common Complaints About Irbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The IRB Paradox: Could the Protectors Also Encourage Deceit?

Keith-Spiegel

Koocher

2005

Ethics & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Common Complaints About Irbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The IRB Paradox: Could the Protectors Also Encourage Deceit?

Keith-Spiegel

Koocher

2005

Ethics & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The fact that other faculty members are perceived to be "evaluating" the merits of a research project is often seen as a challenging and daunting prospect. This may be added to faculty members' unease with REB members with different areas or levels of research experience offering what may be perceived as criticism of their research (Ferraro et al 1999;Liddle and Brazelton 1996;Lynn and Nelson 2005;Malouff and Schutte 2005). For faculty members with multiple responsibilities and tasks and little "spare" time, a research ethics review may be viewed as "one more hoop" to jump through, just to be able to begin their research or access awarded research funding.…”

Section: Challenges Of Having Students As Reb Membersmentioning

confidence: 95%

Students as Members of University-based Academic Research Ethics Boards: A Natural Evolution

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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-...

show abstract

“…Most research is either based on IRB members' perceptions (e.g. Cleary, 1987;Ferraro et al, 1999) or focuses on descriptive aspects of the IRB including such factors as periodicity of meetings, workload management, and outcomes of reviews (e.g. Gray et al, 1978;Goldman and Katz, 1982;Bell et al, 1998).…”

Section: The Irb: Science Ethics Bureaucratizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science ethics as a bureaucratic problem: IRBs, Rules, and Failures of control

Bozeman

Hirsch

2006

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

â€œInstitutionalized science ethicsâ€\x9D refers to the statutory, professional and institution-based ethical standards that guide and constrain scientists' research work. The primary institution responsible for implementing institutionalized science ethics is the Institutional Review Board. We examine the limitations of IRBs and institutionalized science ethics, using bureaucratic theory and, especially, theory related to the development and enactment of rules. We suggest that due to the very character of rules-based systems, improvements in IRB outcomes are unlikely to be achieved through either more or better rules or even by bureaucratic reform. Instead, we suggest that improvements in human subject protection can best be advanced through increased participation. Ours is not a call for more participation by the general public but participation, via â€œParticipant Review Boardsâ€\x9D of persons who are eligible, by the protocols of the research in question, to serve as subjects. This provides a level of legitimacy and face validity that cannot be obtained by IRB affiliates, even by â€œexternal representatives.â€\x9D In making these points, we review a recent science ethics controversy, the KKI/Johns Hopkins lead paint study. In spite of being approved by IRBs, the study resulted in a civil lawsuit that reached the Maryland Court of Appeals. The case illustrates the limits of institutionalized science ethics and the bureaucracies created for their enactment. The case also underscores the complex and equivocal nature of the ethical guidelines established under the National Research Act. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

show abstract

A Survey Regarding the University of North Dakota Institutional Review Board: Data, Attitudes, and Perceptions

Cited by 17 publications

References 6 publications

The IRB Paradox: Could the Protectors Also Encourage Deceit?

The IRB Paradox: Could the Protectors Also Encourage Deceit?

Students as Members of University-based Academic Research Ethics Boards: A Natural Evolution

Science ethics as a bureaucratic problem: IRBs, Rules, and Failures of control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About