The Institutional Review Board as a mirror of scientific and ethical standards.

Abstract

Decisions by institutional review boards (IRBs)

La psicología social de la ciencia: una revisión bibliográfica de su estado actual

“…Además, a pesar de que estos comités sólo deberían valorar los proyectos en base al daño físico o psicológico que pueden sufrir los sujetos que en ellos participan (Stanley, & Sieber, 1992), se ha detectado que las valoraciones a menudo reflejan cuestiones sociopolíticas, hecho que está explícitamente prohibido por orden federal (Ceci, Peters, Plotkin, 1985). En la misma línea, Rosnow, Rotheram-Borus, Ceci, Blanck & Koocher, (1993) advierten de la expansión de funciones que los IRB están experimentando en las últimas dos décadas, lo cual hace urgente limitar su poder, bien sea confeccionando libros con estudios de casos analizados y comentados guiar la actuación de los comités, bien sea estableciendo guías para la evaluación de las propuestas (Prentice & Antonson, 1987), bien sea estableciendo algún procedimiento de evaluación del propio proceso (Cowan & Adams, 1979;Hershey, 1985).…”

Ethics Review of Research Projects Involving Human Subjects

“…Historically, they were primarily concerned with issues surrounding the preservation of subjects' autonomy, such as the informed consent process and confidentiality. The role of research project approval committees has, however, expanded to include issues not specifically related to participant autonomy to the extent that a broad range of design issues is now included in many discussions (Rosnow, Rotherham-Borus, Ceci, Blanck, & Koocher, 1993). They may, for example, conduct a scientific peer review, a statistical review, an examination of compensation claims or subject complaints; they may need to enforce sanctions against offenders and perform any combination of these and other related functions.…”

“…Given the heterogeneous composition and size of IRBs (see earlier), legislated policies or guidelines are difficult to interpret Downloaded by [New Mexico State University] at 06:32 05 June 2016 and apply consistently. There appears to be great variability in the standards invoked, and in turn the recommendations put forward, among IRBs (Rosnow et al, 1993). Such inconsistencies may be the result of the composition of the committee, differing levels of technical expertise, or may stem from the nature of committee action and interaction.…”

Microworlds for experimental research: Having your (control and collection) cake, and realism too

“…Of course, the ethical implications of all these points are positive. With increased efficiency, fewer resources are squandered, fewer subjects' daily routines are disrupted, and a greater research "bang for our buck" is obtained (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1997;Rosnow, Rotheram-Borus, Ceci, Blanck, & Koocher, 1993).…”