Local IRBs vs. Federal Agencies: Shifting Dynamics,Systems,and Relationships

Abstract

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.

Keywords

research ethics health care system organizational system sociology policymaking regulations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Begun

J. W.

Zimmerman

, & Dooley

(2003). Health care organizations as complex adaptive systems. In Mick

S. M.

& Wyttenbach

(Eds.), Advances in health care organization theory (pp. 253–288). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bellis

M. D.

(2008). The illusion of clarity: A critique of “pure” clarity using examples drawn from judicial interpretations of the Constitution of the United States. In Wagner

& Cacciaguidi-Fahy

(Eds.), Obscurity and clarity in the law: Prospects and challenges. UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Burris

(2008). Regulatory innovation in the governance of human subject research: A cautionary tale and some modest proposals. Regulations and Governance, 2(1), 65–84.

De Vries

Anderson

M. S.

, & Martinson

B. C.

(2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.

Dunlop

B. W.

& Banja

(2009). A renewed, ethical defense of placebo-controlled trials of new treatments for major depression and anxiety disorders. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(6), 384–389.

Dziak

Anderson

Sevick

M. A.

Weisman

C. S.

Levine

D. W.

, & Scholle

S. H.

(2005). Variations among institutional review boards in a multisite health services research study. Health Services Research, 40(1), 279–290.

Emanuel

E. J.

& Menikoff

(2011). Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. New England Journal of Medicine, 365(12), 1145–1150.

Emirbayer

(1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.

Endicott

(2001). Law is necessarily vague. Legal Theory, 7, 379–385.

10.

Feifel

(2009). The use of placebo-controlled clinical trials for the approval of psychiatric drugs: Part I—Statistics and the case for the “greater good.” Psychiatry MMC, 6(3), 41–43.

11.

Fleischman

A. R.

(2005). Regulating research with human subjects: Is the system broken? Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 116, 91–102.

12.

Fost

& Levine

R. J.

(2007). The dysregulation of human subjects research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(18), 2196–2198.

13.

Geertz

(1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

14.

Greene

S. M.

& Geiger

A. M.

(2006). A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve institutional review board approval. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(8), 784–790.

15.

Hamburger

(2005). The new censorship: Institutional review boards. University of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 95. Retrieved April 6, 2011 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=721363.

16.

Heimer

C. A.

& Petty

(2010). Bureaucratic ethics: IRBs and the legal regulation of human subjects research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6(1), 601–626.

17.

Howick

(2009). Questioning the methodologic superiority of “placebo” over “active” controlled trials. American Journal of Bioethics, 9(9), 34–38.

18.

Klitzman

(2012). U.S. IRBs confronting research in the developing world. Developing World Bioethics. Published ahead of print April 19, 2012.

19.

Klitzman

(2011a). “Members of the same club”: Challenges and decisions faced by U.S. IRBs in identifying and managing conflicts of interest. PLoS ONE, 6(7), e22796. Published online July 29, 2011.

20.

Klitzman

(2011b). How local IRBs view central IRBs in the U.S. BMC Medical Ethics, 12(13). Published online June 23, 2011.

21.

Klitzman

(2011c). Views and experiences of IRBs concerning research integrity. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 39(3), 513–528.

22.

Klitzman

(2011d). The myth of community differences as the cause of variations among IRBs. American Journal of Bioethics, 2(2), 24–33.

23.

Koocher

G. P.

(2005). The IRB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit? Ethics and Behavior, 15(4), 339–349.

24.

Kulynych

J. D.

& Korn

(2003). The new HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) medical privacy rule: Help or hindrance for clinical research? Circulation, 108, 912–914.

25.

Larson

Bratts

Zwanziger

, & Stone

(2004). A survey of IRB process in 68 U.S. hospitals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36(3), 260–264.

26.

Laughren

T. P.

(2001). The scientific and ethical basis for placebo-controlled trials in depression and schizophrenia: An FDA perspective. European Psychiatry, 16(7), 418–423.

27.

Lidz

C. W.

Simon

L. J.

Seligowski

A. V.

Myers

Gardner

Candilis

P. J.

Arnold

, & Appelbaum

P. S.

(2012). The participation of community members on institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(1), 1–8.

28.

McWilliams

Hoover-Fong

Hamosh

Beck

Beaty

, & Cutting

(2003). Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290(3), 360–366.

29.

Menikoff

(2010). The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(17), 1591–1593.

30.

Parsons

(1951). The social system. New York: The Free Press.

31.

Schrag

(2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

32.

Silbey

S. S.

(2011). The sociological citizen: Pragmatic and relational regulation in law and organizations. Regulation and Governance, 5(1), 1–13.

33.

Stark

(2011). Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

34.

Strauss

& Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

35.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Retrieved April 19, 2012 from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-26/pdf/2011-18792.pdf.

36.

Von Bertalanffy

(1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 134–165.