Human-subjects research: trial and error

Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges

Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees provide a core protection for human research participants through advance and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for human research. IRBs were codified in US regulation just over three decades ago and are widely required by law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the research landscape has grown and evolved, as has the system of IRB review and oversight. Evidence of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB system. Some complain that IRB review is time-consuming and burdensome without clear evidence of effectiveness at protecting human subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the current IRB system, and many alternative models are currently being tried. Current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more attention and evidence. Proposed changes to the US federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and test review and oversight models that provide adequate and respectful protections of participant rights and welfare and that are appropriate, efficient, and adaptable for current and future research.

[How to succeed at funding a research year in anaesthesiology and critical care in France?]

Good research needs good financial support. The research fellowship is a full-time job that leaves no time for another job to pay the rent. Funding the daily-life part of the fellowship is therefore a sine qua none condition for serenity and good research. Preparing grants applications for research is a crucial step towards success. There is however a lack of easily available information for personal funding application in Anesthesiology and Critical Care research. In this review, we aimed to present the different stages of this long process, from grant application to taxes payment.

Informed consent in the genomics era

Matthias Wjst and colleagues argue that traditional informed consent may no longer be appropriate when dealing with long-term studies using biological material.