The IRB Paradox: Could the Protectors Also Encourage Deceit?

Reimagining IRB review to incorporate a clear and convincing standard of evidence

This commentary is a critical response to the article written by David Resnik regarding the use of a standard of evidence for Institutional Review Board (IRB) decision making. Resnik suggests that IRBs should not only base decisions on evidence, but that this evidence should be sufficient to ensure a "clear and convincing" standard similar to that used by juries for legal proceedings. We agree that the increased use of evidence to meet this standard would be ideal since this provides clear guidance and could allow for a more transparent IRB review. However, to effectively meet this standard, significant modification would be required for researchers as well as for IRBs' processes. First, researchers would be required to identify, understand and include appropriate scientific and ethics evidence in support of their protocol. IRB members and IRB professionals would need to discuss the importance, value, and significance of evidence in order to come to a collective decision regarding each protocol. Such responsibilities are justifiable and could bring much needed rigor and transparency to the system but they would require time, training, research, and education. While Resnik's suggestion seems to incorporate a small change with respect to a standard, in application it would actually require a novel system.

Toward the development of a perceived IRB violation scale

This study introduces survey items that can be used to assess the perceived prevalence of specific IRB violations by researchers or to gauge the perceived seriousness of such infractions. Using survey data from tenured and tenure-track faculty at research-intensive universities, the descriptive findings showed that the failure to properly store data and neglecting to maintain project records were perceived to be the most widespread violations by sample members. Although comparatively less definitive, the results also showed that problems with data storage and record keeping were perceived to be relatively serious violations. As for scaling, the results from the exploratory factor analyses showed that the prevalence and seriousness scales were unidimensional. These findings support the practice of providing researchers with services for storing project data and records. Finally, the IRB violation scale developed in this study can be used by research integrity professionals to assess faculty perceptions at their universities.

Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis

Background

Biomedical research is overseen by numerous Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Singapore but there has been no research that examines how the research review process is perceived by the local research community nor is there any systematic data on perceptions regarding the review process or other research ethics processes and IRB characteristics. The aim of this study was to ascertain general views regarding the overall perceived value of ethics review processes; to measure perceptions about local IRB functions and characteristics; to identify IRB functions and characteristics viewed as important; and to compare these views with those of other international studies.

Methods

An online survey was used with the main component being the IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), a validated tool, to evaluate perceptions of ideal and actual IRB functions and characteristics held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff. Data were analysed descriptively first, with mean and SD of each item of IRB-RAT questionnaire reported, excluding the respondents whose answers were unknown or not applicable. The Wilcoxon Sign Rank test was used to compare the ideal and actual ratings of each IRB-RAT item, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the ratings of each IRB-RAT item between respondents with different characteristics. The Z-test was used to compare the mean ratings of our cohort with the mean ratings reported in the literature. The correlation between our mean ideal scores and those of two international studies also employing the IRB-RAT was examined.

Results

Seventy-one respondents completed the survey. This cohort generally held positive views of the impact of the ethics review process on: the quality of research; establishing and maintaining public trust in research; the protection of research participants; and on the scientific validity of research. The most important ideal IRB characteristics were timeliness, upholding participants’ rights while also facilitating research, working with investigators to find solutions when there are disagreements, and not allowing biases to affect reviews. For almost all 45 IRB-RAT statements, the rating of the importance of the characteristic was higher than the rating of how much that characteristic was descriptive of IRBs the respondents were familiar with. There was a significant strong correlation between our study’s scores on the ideal IRB characteristics and those of the first and largest published study that employed the IRB-RAT, the US National Validation (USNV) sample in Keith-Spiegel et al. [19].

Conclusions

An understanding of the perceptions held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff on the value that the ethics review process adds, their perceptions of actual IRB functions and characteristics as well as what they view as central to high functioning IRBs is the first step to considering the aspects of the review process that might benefit from improvements. This study provides insight into how our cohort compares to others internationally and highlights strengths and areas for improvement of Singapore IRBs as perceived by a small sample of the local research community. Such insights provide a springboard for additional research and may assist in further enhancing good relations so that both are working towards the same end.

Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

BACKGROUND

Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?

METHODS

With that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.

RESULTS

Twenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.

Researchers' views on, and experiences with, the requirement to obtain informed consent in research involving human participants: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is often cited as the "cornerstone" of research ethics. Its intent is that participants enter research voluntarily, with an understanding of what their participation entails. Despite agreement on the necessity to obtain informed consent in research, opinions vary on the threshold of disclosure necessary and the best method to obtain consent. We aimed to investigate Australian researchers' views on, and their experiences with, obtaining informed consent.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 researchers from NSW institutions, working in various fields of research. Interviews were analysed and coded to identify themes.

RESULTS

Researchers reported that consent involved information disclosure, understanding and a voluntary decision. They emphasised the variability of consent interactions, which were dependent on potential participants' abilities and interests, study complexity and context. All researchers reported providing written information to potential participants, yet questioned the readability and utility of this information. The majority reported using signed consent forms to 'operationalise' consent and reported little awareness of, and lack of support in implementing more dynamic informed consent procedures, such as verbal informed consent, that was fit for the purposes of their studies. Views on Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) varied. Some reported inconsistent, arduous inputs on the information form and consent process. Others expressed reliance on HRECs for guidance, viewing them as institutional safeguards.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of transparent relationships, both between researchers and participants, and between researchers and HRECs. Where the relationship with study participants was reported as more robust, researchers felt that they were better able to ensure participants made better, more informed decisions. Where the relationship with HRECs was reported as more robust, researchers were more likely to view them as institutional safeguards, rather than as bureaucratic hindrances. Conscientious and mindful researchers are paramount to ensuring the procedure accommodates individual requirements. This study advocates that when designing ethical informed consent practices, researchers should be integrated as autonomous players with a positive input on the process, rather than, in the worst case, predatory recruiters to be curtailed by information forms and oversight.

Should the Decisions of Institutional Review Boards Be Consistent?

In response to increasing concerns regarding inconsistency in the decision-making of institutional review boards (IRBs), we introduce the decision-maker's dilemma, which arises when complex, normative decisions must be made regularly. Those faced with such decisions can either develop a process of algorithmic decision-making, in which consistency is ensured but many morally relevant factors are excluded from the process, or embrace discretionary decision-making, which makes space for morally relevant factors to shape decisions but leads to decisions that are inconsistent. Based on an exploration of similarities between systems of criminal sentencing and of research ethics review, we argue for a discretionary system of decision-making, even though it leads to more inconsistency than does an algorithmic system. We conclude with a discussion of some safeguards that could improve consistency while still making space for discretion to enter IRBs' decision-making processes.

Barriers to Effective Deliberation in Clinical Research Oversight

Ethical oversight of clinical research is one of the primary means of ensuring that human subjects are protected from the natural bias of researchers and research institutions in favor of experimentation. At a minimum, effective oversight should ensure that risks are minimized and reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, protect vulnerable subjects from potential coercion or undue influence, ensure full and informed consent, and promote the equitable distribution of the risks and benefits of research. Because these assessments often involve value judgments for which there are no agreed-upon objective standards, we rely on deliberative procedures thought to have the greatest likelihood of producing the right or best outcomes. Concerns about the potential for improperly functioning IRBs to waste scarce human and institutional resources and impede biomedical progress have motivated a surge in empirical research assessing their procedures and outcomes. Yet within this literature, there has been minimal attention paid to the social scientific evidence regarding how individuals and deliberating groups make decisions, nor how those data might inform IRB practice. This essay seeks to fill that gap, locating recent empirical data on IRB composition and process within the context of data regarding what I call "deliberative pathologies," or instances when deliberation fails to live up to one or more aspect of the deliberative ideal because of systematic biases in the ways participants interact. The paper goes on to make evidence-based recommendations to reduce the vulnerability of IRB deliberations to the kinds of pathologies discussed and indicate directions for future research.

Network of Ethical Relationships model for global North-South population health research

Although a substantial body of literature exists that details how to address ethical issues and provide oversight for traditional research study designs, there currently is very little guidance available to researchers on how to deal with the unique and novel challenges that arise when conducting research that goes outside of these well-defined boundaries. One such example is North-South (N-S) team-based global population health (GPH) research. This paper presents a Network of Ethical Relationships (NER) model which can allow GPH researchers better understand and resolve ethical issues that arise in N-S collaborative research efforts. The NER model elucidates some of the core relationships involved in GPH research and sheds light on the complex milieu of moral, institutional, societal and legal processes in which it is embedded. The utility of the NER model is examined by reviewing 14 GPH research teams, looking at two relationships in more detail - Researcher-Ethics Board, and Researcher-Funder relationships. The paper argues that improved dialogue and flexibility in the application of formal ethical rules and procedures can lead to research being conducted in a more ethical manner since it better accounts for the multitude of voices and perspectives influencing researchers' choices and actions.

A Mixed-Method Analysis of Reports on 100 Cases of Improper Prescribing of Controlled Substances

Improper prescribing of controlled substances contributes to opioid addictions and deaths by overdose. Studies conducted to-date have largely lacked a theoretical framework and ignored the interaction of individual with environmental factors. We conducted a mixed-method analysis of published reports on 100 cases that occurred in the United States. An average of 17 reports (e.g., from medical boards) per case were coded for 38 dichotomous variables describing the physician, setting, patients, and investigation. A theory on how the case occurred was developed for each case. Explanatory typologies were developed and then validated through hierarchical cluster analysis. Most cases involved physicians who were male (88%), >40 years old (90%), non-board certified (63%), and in small private practices (97%); 54% of cases reported facts about the physician indicative of self-centered personality traits. Three explanatory typologies were validated. Increasing oversight provided by peers and trainees may help prevent improper prescribing of controlled substances.

Compliance Disengagement in Research: Development and Validation of a New Measure

In the world of research, compliance with research regulations is not the same as ethics, but it is closely related. One could say that compliance is how most societies with advanced research programs operationalize many ethical obligations. This paper reports on the development of the How I Think about Research (HIT-Res) questionnaire, which is an adaptation of the How I Think (HIT) questionnaire that examines the use of cognitive distortions to justify antisocial behaviors. Such an adaptation was justified based on a review of the literature on mechanisms of moral disengagement and self-serving biases, which are used by individuals with normal personalities in a variety of contexts, including research. The HIT-Res adapts all items to refer to matters of research compliance and integrity rather than antisocial behaviors. The HIT-Res was administered as part of a battery of tests to 300 researchers and trainees funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The HIT-Res demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .92). Construct validity was established by the correlation of the HIT-Res with measures of moral disengagement (r = .75), cynicism (r = .51), and professional decision-making in research (r = -.36). The HIT-Res will enrich the set of assessment tools available to instructors in the responsible conduct of research and to researchers who seek to understand the factors that influence research integrity.

What Scientists Want from Their Research Ethics Committee

Whereas investigators have directed considerable criticism against Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), the desirable characteristics of IRBs have not previously been empirically determined. A sample of 886 experienced biomedical and social and behavioral scientists rated 45 descriptors of IRB actions and functions as to their importance. Predictions derived from organizational justice research findings in other work settings were generally borne out. Investigators place high value on the fairness and respectful consideration of their IRBs. Expected differences between biomedical and social behavioral researchers and other variables were unfounded. Recommendations are offered for educating IRBs to accord researchers greater respect and fair treatment.

A Case-Study of the Resources and Functioning of Two Research Ethics Committees in Western India

Assessing the resources and functioning of research ethics committees (RECs) in low-resource settings poses many challenges. We conducted a case study of two medical college RECs (A and B) in Western India utilizing the Research Ethics Committee Quality Assurance Self-Assessment Tool (RECQASAT) as well as in-depth interviews with representative members to evaluate REC effectiveness. REC A and B obtained 62% and 67% of allowable points on the RECQASAT. These scores together with findings from the in-depth interviews suggest the need for significant improvement in REC effectiveness particularly in the areas of membership and educational training, organizational aspects, recording minutes, communicating decisions, and REC resources. Developing evidence-based best practices and strengthening infrastructure are essential to enhancing REC efficacy in low-resource countries.

Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States

Background

The aim of this paper is to compare common features and variation in the work of research ethics committees (RECs) in Finland to three other countries – England, Canada, the United States of America (USA) – in the late 2000s.

Methods

Several approaches and data sources were used, including semi- or unstructured interviews of experts, documents, previous reports, presentations in meetings and observations. A theoretical framework was created and data from various sources synthesized.

Results

In Finland, RECs were regulated by a medical research law, whereas in the other countries many related laws and rules guided RECs; drug trials had specific additional rules. In England and the USA, there was a REC control body. In all countries, members were voluntary and included lay-persons, and payment arrangements varied. Patient protection was the main ethics criteria, but other criteria (research advancement, availability of results, payments, detailed fulfilment of legislation) varied. In all countries, RECs had been given administrative duties. Variations by country included the mandate, practical arrangements, handling of multi-site research, explicitness of proportionate handlings, judging scientific quality, time-limits for decisions, following of projects, role in institute protection, handling conflicts of interests, handling of projects without informed consent, and quality assurance research. The division of work between REC members and secretariats varied in checking of formalities. In England, quality assurance of REC work was thorough, fairly thorough in the USA, and not performed in Finland.

Conclusions

The work of RECs in the four countries varied notably. Various deficiencies in the system require action, for which international comparison can provide useful insights.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0078-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is your ethics committee efficient? Using "IRB Metrics" as a self-assessment tool for continuous improvement at the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand

Tensions between researchers and ethics committees have been reported in several institutions. Some reports suggest researchers lack confidence in the quality of institutional review board (IRB) reviews, and that emphasis on strict procedural compliance and ethical issues raised by the IRB might unintentionally lead to delays in correspondence between researchers and ethics committees, and/or even encourage prevarication/equivocation, if researchers perceive committee concerns and criticisms unjust. This study systematically analyzed the efficiency of different IRB functions, and the relationship between efficiency and perceived quality of the decision-making process. The major purposes of this study were thus (1) to use the IRB Metrics developed by the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand (FTM-EC) to assess the operational efficiency and perceived effectiveness of its ethics committees, and (2) to determine ethical issues that may cause the duration of approval process to be above the target limit of 60 days. Based on a literature review of definitions and methods used and proposed for use, in assessing aspects of IRB quality, an “IRB Metrics” was developed to assess IRB processes using a structure-process-outcome measurement model. To observe trends in the indicators evaluated, data related to all protocols submitted to the two panels of the FTM-EC (clinical and non-clinical), between January 2010–September 2013, were extracted and analyzed. Quantitative information based on IRB Metrics structure-process-outcome illuminates different areas for internal-process improvement. Ethical issues raised with researchers by the IRB, which were associated with the duration of the approval process in protocol review, could be considered root causes of tensions between the parties. The assessment of IRB structure-process-outcome thus provides a valuable opportunity to strengthen relationships and reduce conflicts between IRBs and researchers, with positive outcomes for all parties involved in the conduct of human-subject research.

Understanding research misconduct: a comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing

We analyzed 40 cases of falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism (FFP), comparing them to other types of wrongdoing in research (n = 40) and medicine (n = 40). Fifty-one variables were coded from an average of 29 news or investigative reports per case. Financial incentives, oversight failures, and seniority correlate significantly with more serious instances of FFP. However, most environmental variables were nearly absent from cases of FFP and none were more strongly present in cases of FFP than in other types of wrongdoing. Qualitative data suggest FFP involves thinking errors, poor coping with research pressures, and inadequate oversight. We offer recommendations for education, institutional investigations, policy, and further research.

Investigators' successful strategies for working with Institutional Review Boards

This study was designed to identify successful strategies used by investigators for working with their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in conducting human subjects research. Telephone interviews were conducted with 46 investigators representing nursing, medicine, and social work. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. Investigators emphasized the importance of intentionally cultivating positive relationships with IRB staff and members, and managing bureaucracy. A few used evasive measures to avoid conflict with IRBs. Few successful strategies were identified for working with multiple IRBs. Although most investigators developed successful methods for working with IRBs, further research is needed on how differences in IRB culture affect human subjects protection, and on best approaches for obtaining IRB approval of multi-site studies.

Understanding the Severity of Wrongdoing in Health Care Delivery and Research: Lessons Learned From a Historiometric Study of 100 Cases

BACKGROUND

Wrongdoing among physicians and researchers causes myriad problems for patients and research participants. While many articles have been published on professional wrongdoing, our literature review found no studies that examined the rich contextual details of large sets of historical cases of wrongdoing.

METHODS

We examined 100 cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research using historiometric methods, which involve the statistical description and analysis of coded historical narratives. We used maximum variation, criterion-based sampling to identify cases involving 29 kinds of wrongdoing contained in a taxonomy of wrongdoing developed for the project. We coded the presence of a variety of environmental and wrongdoer variables and rated the severity of wrongdoing found in each case. This approach enabled us to (a) produce rich descriptions of variables characterizing cases; (b) identify factors influencing the severity of wrongdoing; and (c) test the hypothesis that professional wrongdoing is a unified, relatively homogenous phenomenon such as "organizational deviance."

RESULTS

Some variables were consistently found across cases (e.g., wrongdoers were male and cases lasted more than 2 years), and some variables were consistently absent across cases (e.g., cases did not involve wrongdoers who were mistreated by institutions or penalized for doing what is right). However, we also found that some variables associated with wrongdoing in research (such as ambiguous legal and ethical norms) differ from those associated with wrongdoing in healthcare delivery (such as wrongdoers with a significant history of professional misbehavior).

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier intervention from colleagues might help prevent the pattern we observed of repeated wrongdoing across multiple years. While some variables characterize the vast majority of highly publicized cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research-regardless of the kind of wrongdoing-it is important to examine and compare sets of relatively homogenous cases in order to identify factors associated with wrongdoing.

A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, part 2: structure and organizational functions

Support for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) varies among those in animal use-related professions. The authors designed and carried out an anonymous survey to solicit opinions on the structure and organizational functions of IACUCs. They found that most respondents believed a single, institution-based IACUC was an appropriate venue for institutional approval of animal care and use, that their IACUCs represented their institutions' constituencies and that the unaffiliated IACUC members adequately represented their surrounding communities. Respondents believed that members came prepared for IACUC meetings, and a majority agreed that full committee reviews were more thorough than designated member reviews. The quality of veterinary care for animals was deemed to be very good. Participants reported that the status of the person submitting an animal use protocol, the perceived monetary value of a grant associated with a protocol and pressure for a rapid protocol review did not alter the quality of the protocol review. On many of the survey items, opinions of IACUC members differently significantly from those of non-members, and opinions of non-member IACUC administrators differed from those of IACUC chairpersons, perhaps owing to differences in responsibilities and perceived status.

Protecting and respecting the vulnerable: existing regulations or further protections?

Scholars and policymakers continue to struggle over the meaning of the word "vulnerable" in the context of research ethics. One major reason for the stymied discussions regarding vulnerable populations is that there is no clear distinction between accounts of research vulnerabilities that exist for certain populations and discussions of research vulnerabilities that require special regulations in the context of research ethics policies. I suggest an analytic process by which to ascertain whether particular vulnerable populations should be contenders for additional regulatory protections. I apply this process to two vulnerable populations: the cognitively vulnerable and the economically vulnerable. I conclude that a subset of the cognitively vulnerable require extra protections while the economically vulnerable should be protected by implementing existing regulations more appropriately and rigorously. Unless or until the informed consent process is more adequately implemented and the distributive justice requirement of the Belmont Report is emphasized and operationalized, the economically disadvantaged will remain particularly vulnerable to the harm of exploitation in research.

Human research ethics committees: examining their roles and practices

Considerable time and resources are invested in the ethics review process. We present qualitative data on how human research ethics committee members and health researchers perceive the role and function of the committee. The findings are based on interviews with 34 Australian ethics committee members and 54 health researchers. Although all participants agreed that the primary role of the ethics committee was to protect participants, there was disagreement regarding the additional roles undertaken by committees. Of particular concern were the perceptions from some ethics committee members and researchers that ethics committees were working to protect the institution's interests, as well as being overprotective toward research participants. This has the potential to lead to poor relations and mistrust between ethics committees and researchers.

Local IRBs vs. federal agencies: shifting dynamics, systems, and relationships

How IRBs relate to federal agencies, and the implications of these relationships, have received little, if any, systematic study. I interviewed 46 IRB chairs, directors, administrators, and members, contacting the leadership of 60 U.S. IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), interviewing IRB leaders from 34 (response rate=55%). IRBs describe complex direct and indirect relationships with federal agencies that affect IRBs through audits, guidance documents, and other communications, and can generate problems and challenges. Researchers often blame IRBs for frustrations, but IRBs often serve as the "local face" of federal regulations and agencies and are "stuck in the middle." These data have critical implications for policy, practice, and research.

A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Part 1: animal welfare and protocol compliance

Nearly half of all external grants from the US National Institutes of Health require approval by the recipient organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before the funds can be used for research with animals. Given that large sums of money are spent annually on research involving animals, studies evaluating the strengths, weaknesses and overall effectiveness of IACUCs and similar animal welfare committees are needed. The authors designed and carried out a self-assessment survey on IACUC function and effectiveness. They found that 98% of all respondents believed that their IACUCs advanced animal welfare, but in many instances, veterinarians' responses to individual survey items were significantly different from those of other IACUC members. Protocol compliance, protocol review training and better understanding among non-committee members of the need for regulatory oversight are some areas where improvements could be made. Less than 50% of respondents stated that literature searches to find alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures were helpful.

From anonymity to "open doors": IRB responses to tensions with researchers

Background

Tensions between IRBs and researchers in the US and elsewhere have increased, and may affect whether, how, and to what degree researchers comply with ethical guidelines. Yet whether, how, when, and why IRBs respond to these conflicts have received little systematic attention.

Findings

I contacted 60 US IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed leaders from 34 (response rate = 55%) and an additional 12 members and administrators. IRBs often try to respond to tensions with researchers and improve relationships in several ways, but range widely in how, when, and to what degree (e.g., in formal and informal structure, content, and tone of interactions). IRBs varied from open and accessible to more distant and anonymous, and in the amount and type of “PR work” and outreach they do. Many boards seek to improve the quantity, quality, and helpfulness of communication with PIs, but differ in how. IRBs range in meetings from open to closed, and may have clinics and newsletters. Memos can vary in helpfulness and tone (e.g., using “charm”). IRBs range considerably, too, in the degrees to which they seek to educate PIs, showing them the underlying ethical principles. But these efforts take time and resources, and IRBs thus vary in degrees of responses to PI complaints.

Conclusions

This study, the first to explore the mechanisms through which IRBs respond to tensions and interactions with PIs, suggests that these committees seek to respond to conflicts with PIs in varying ways – both formal and informal, involving both the form and content of communications. This study has important implications for future practice, research, and policy, suggesting needs for increased attention to not only what IRBs communicate to PIs, but how (i.e., the tone and the nature of interactions). IRBs can potentially improve relationships with PIs in several ways: using more “open doors” rather than anonymity, engaging in outreach (e.g., through clinics), enhancing the tone as well as content of interactions, educating PIs about the underlying ethics, and helping PIs as much and proactively as possible. Increased awareness of these issues can help IRBs and researchers in the US and elsewhere.

Environmental Factors Contributing to Wrongdoing in Medicine: A Criterion-Based Review of Studies and Cases

In this paper we describe our approach to understanding wrongdoing in medical research and practice, which involves the statistical analysis of coded data from a large set of published cases. We focus on understanding the environmental factors that predict the kind and the severity of wrongdoing in medicine. Through review of empirical and theoretical literature, consultation with experts, the application of criminological theory, and ongoing analysis of our first 60 cases, we hypothesize that 10 contextual features of the medical environment (including financial rewards, oversight failures, and patients belonging to vulnerable groups) may contribute to professional wrongdoing. We define each variable, examine data supporting our hypothesis, and present a brief case synopsis from our study that illustrates the potential influence of the variable. Finally, we discuss limitations of the resulting framework and directions for future research.

The ethics police?: IRBs' views concerning their power

Background

In recent years, tensions between IRBs and principal investigators (PIs) have risen, posing the needs to understand these conflicts, their underlying causes, and possible solutions. Researchers frequently complain about IRBs, but how IRBs perceive and respond to these criticisms is unclear.

Methods

I conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of two hours each with 46 chairs, administrators, and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs around the country (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding) and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%).

Results

Interviewees suggest that IRBs and PIs may view the nature and causes of these conflicts very differently and misunderstand each other, exacerbating tensions. Interviewees often recognized that they were seen by PIs as having power, but many IRBs saw themselves as not having it (e.g., because they are “merely following the regulations,” and their process is “open,” impersonal and unbiased, and they are themselves subject to higher administrative agencies), or as having it, but feeling it is small, and/or justified (e.g., because it is based on overriding goals and “the community values,” and IRBs are trying to help PIs). Questions emerge as to whether IRBs do or should have power, and if so, what kind, how much, and when. Several factors may affect these tensions.

Conclusions

This study, the first to explore how IRBs perceive and understand conflicts and power relationships with PIs, suggests how IRBs and PIs may differ in viewing their respective roles and relationships, exacerbating tensions. These issues have critical implications for IRBs and PIs—to enhance their awareness and understanding of these conflicts (e.g., that IRBs may have discretionary power) and the underlying causes involved, and for increasing attention to research, practice, and policy concerning these areas of IRB functioning and interactions with PIs.

The Case against Ethics Review in the Social Sciences

For decades, scholars in the social sciences and humanities have questioned the appropriateness and utility of prior review of their research by human subjects' ethics committees. This essay seeks to organize thematically some of their published complaints and to serve as a brief restatement of the major critiques of ethics review. In particular, it argues that 1) ethics committees impose silly restrictions, 2) ethics review is a solution in search of a problem, 3) ethics committees lack expertise, 4) ethics committees apply inappropriate principles, 5) ethics review harms the innocent, and 6) better options exist.

How Do IRB Members Make Decisions? A Review and Research Agenda

Many factors have been found to influence the nature and quality of the human research ethics review process. These are reviewed along with discussion of ways in which normal psychological characteristics and group decision-making processes may affect the decisions of institutional review board (IRB) members when reviewing proposed research activities, and may contribute to the acknowledged variability of IRB responses to identical research proposals. Three salient features of human judgment and decision-making illuminated by the existing psychological research literature are used to illustrate this idea: Research findings related to (a) risk perception and acceptance, (b) the standards people use to make decisions, and (c) some nonrational influences on group decision-making suggest how psychological characteristics may affect some outcomes of convened IRB meetings. Recognizing such influences may enable the improvement of IRB decision-making.

The Myth of Community Differences as the Cause of Variations Among IRBs

BACKGROUND

Although variations among institutional review boards (IRBs) have been documented for 30 years, they continue, raising crucial questions as to why they persist as well as how IRBs view and respond to these variations.

METHODS

In-depth, 2-hour interviews were conducted with 46 IRB chairs, administrators, and members. The leadership of 60 U.S. IRBs were contacted (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding). IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions were interviewed (response rate = 55%).

RESULTS

The interviewees suggest that differences often persist because IRBs think these are legitimate, and regulations permit variations due to differing "community values." Yet, these variations frequently appear to stem more from differences in institutional and subjective personality factors, and from "more eyes" examining protocols, trying to foresee all potential future logistical problems, than from the values of the communities from which research participants are drawn. However, IRBs generally appear to defend these variations as reflecting underlying differences in community norms.

CONCLUSIONS

These data pose critical questions for policy and practice. Attitudinal changes and education among IRBs, principal investigators (PIs), policymakers, and others and research concerning these issues are needed.

Views and experiences of IRBs concerning research integrity

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) can play vital roles in observing, monitoring, and responding to research integrity (RI) issues among researchers, yet many questions remain concerning whether, when, and in what ways these boards adopt these roles. I contacted 60 IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed leaders from 34 (response rate=55%), and an additional 12 members and administrators. IRBs become involved in a variety of RI problems, broadly defined, and face challenges in deciding how and when to do so. IRBs vary in how they define, discover, and respond to RI problems, and interact with other institutional offices concerning these issues; and what types of RI violations they encountered. While many institutions establish separate Compliance Offices, the boundaries and relationships between these entities and IRBs vary; and many IRBs discover and monitor RI violations, and struggle with how to respond. Larger questions arise of how IRBs decide whether to trust vs. closely monitor individual PIs. IRBs' roles are often indirect, and not fully systematic, raising questions of whether these functions should be enhanced, and if so, to what degree, and how. These areas require heightened investigation and discussion.

The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity

The professional behavior of scientists, for good or ill, is likely associated with their perceptions of whether they are treated fairly in their work environments, including their academic department and university and by relevant regulatory bodies. These relationships may also be influenced by their own personal characteristics, such as being overcommitted to their work, and by the interactions between these factors. Theory also suggests that such associations may be mediated by negative or positive affect. We examined these issues using data from a national, mail-based survey administered in 2006 and 2007 to 5,000 randomly selected faculty from biomedical and social science departments at 50 top-tier research universities in the United States. We found that perceptions of justice in one's workplace (organizational justice) are positively associated with self-report of "ideal" behaviors and negatively associated with self-report of misbehavior and misconduct. By contrast, researchers who perceive that they are being unfairly treated are less likely to report engaging in "ideal" behaviors and more likely to report misbehavior and misconduct. Overcommitment to one's work is also associated with negative affect and interacts with perceptions of unfair treatment in ways that are associated with higher self-report of misbehavior. Thus, perceptions of fair treatment in the work environment appear to play important roles in fostering-or undermining-research integrity.

The convergence of research and clinical practice: institutional review board review of humanitarian use device applications

WE SURVEYED IRB CHAIRS IN THE United States to ascertain whether their IRBs have clarity regarding their FDA-mandated role in reviewing humanitarian use device (HUD) applications, which are neither research devices nor fully tested treatments. Of 2,588 Chairs, 469 (18%) completed the survey, almost half of whom (44%) reported review of a HUD application within the previous five years. Findings suggest that many IRB Chairs are confused about what HUDs are, how to review HUD applications, and why IRBs should review them. We recommend that the FDA clarify their policies so that Chairs can provide the guidance necessary for IRBs to more effectively and consistently review HUD applications, and thereby better protect HUD-treated patients.