Resolving Beecher's Paradox: Getting beyond IRB reform

Protection of persons participating as research subjects is an essential element of ethical research conduct. There is growing concern that the existing system of institutional review boards (IRBs) and informed consent may not be adequate and is in need of reform. When science and medicine are “merged”; in clinical research, confusion of roles and conflicts of interests arise in relationships between patient‐subjects and physician‐investigators. IRBs have always had a primary role in protection of research participants. Their efforts to protect research subjects may make it more difficult for investigators to conduct research. This tension has lead to the development of an adversarial relationship between IRBs and investigators. Investigators and IRBs are also subject to external pressures that could impact efforts to protect research subjects. Efforts are underway to address these concerns. IRB reform, while needed, is not likely to be sufficient. Adoption of a new paradigm in which IRBs, investigators and research sponsors collectively accept protection of research subjects as their primary and shared responsibility may provide a more effective and efficient model that will be better able to deal with difficult ethical and social issues in clinical research.     

The Expanding Purview: Institutional Review Boards and the Review of Human Subjects Research

The implications of the institutional review board (IRB) system's growing purview are examined. Among the issues discussed are whether IRBs are censoring research and whether the IRB review process fundamentally alters the research that is being conducted. The intersection between IRB review and free speech is also explored. In general, it is argued that the review system for human subjects research (HSR) should be modified in order to limit the scope of IRB review.     

The expanding purview: institutional review boards and the review of human subjects research

The implications of the institutional review board (IRB) system's growing purview are examined. Among the issues discussed are whether IRBs are censoring research and whether the IRB review process fundamentally alters the research that is being conducted. The intersection between IRB review and free speech is also explored. In general, it is argued that the review system for human subjects research (HSR) should be modified in order to limit the scope of IRB review.     

Informed consent for research on stored blood and tissue samples: a survey of institutional review board practices

Numerous position papers have outlined informed consent recommendations for the collection, storage, and future use of biological samples; however, there currently is no consensus regarding what kinds of information should be included in consent forms. This study aimed to determine whether institutional review boards (IRBs) vary in their informed consent requirements for research on stored biological samples, and whether any variation observed could be correlated to factors such as volume of work, IRB members' familiarity with ethical issues in genetic research, and IRBs' use of either of two policy guidelines as resources. A brief survey was mailed to all IRB chairpersons on a mailing list obtained from the Office for Human Research Protections. Survey questions included whether consent forms for the collection of biological samples for future use address each of six provisions recommended in current guidelines and position statements, and whether IRBs used the Office for Protection from Research Risks' 1993 Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook, chapter 5 (hereinafter IRB Guidebook) or the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's 1999 Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Volume I (hereinafter Report) in their deliberations. Despite a low response rate (22%, 427 respondents), results indicate that IRB practices vary substantially. The degree to which the provisions were included in consent forms was found to correlate positively with IRBs that review a greater volume of protocols annually, those that use the National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report in their deliberations, and those that draw on both the Report and the IRB Guidebook.     

Reforming the Oversight of Multi-Site Clinical Research: A Review of Two Possible Solutions

The current system for the ethical oversight of clinical research suffers from structural, procedural, and performance assessment problems. Initially conceived primarily to handle local investigator-initiated single-site studies, the system of institutionally-based committee review has become progressively more inefficient given the increased prevalence of commercially or federally sponsored multi-center trials. To date, proposed solutions do not adequately address these problems.

Beginning with a review of these structural, procedural, and performance assessment problems, this article will then consider two proposals for addressing these deficiencies: (a) regional ethics organizations; and (b) IRBNet?, a newly developed web-based program for cooperative IRB review. The strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches will be evaluated in light of recent experience with centralized review. The proposal to establish a system of regional ethics organizations presents a comprehensive approach to many of the problems faced by the current system. However, IRBNet? offers an immediate and feasible solution to many of the problems faced by the review of multi-site clinical studies.     

A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board members

In addition to outlining criteria for the approval of human subjects research, federal regulations provide guidance regarding local institutional review boards (IRB) membership. IRBs are mandated to include "at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas" and "at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution." Often a single individual serves both of these roles simultaneously. Although there have been calls for increased representation of lay community members in IRBs, little is known regarding their experiences or their perceptions of human subject protections and the IRB process. Using an ethnographic interview approach, this study seeks to gain a perspective from non-affiliated, non-scientist (NA/NS) IRB members about the process in which they participated. Findings suggest a need for clarification regarding whom NA/NS IRB members represent. They also suggest that NA/NS IRB members' experiences could be improved by an increased show of respect from the IRB chair, other members, and staff; efforts to make participation more convenient for these volunteer members; and training tailored specifically to NA/NS members. Further research on this important and understudied topic is needed to determine best practice and policy recommendations.     

A Qualitative Study of Non-Affiliated,Non-Scientist Institutional Review Board Members

In addition to outlining criteria for the approval of human subjects research, federal regulations provide guidance regarding local institutional review board (IRB) membership. IRBs are mandated to include “at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas” and “at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution.” Often a single individual serves both of these roles simultaneously. Although there have been calls for increased representation of lay community members on IRBs, little is known regarding their experiences or their perceptions of human subject protections and the IRB process. Using an ethnographic interview approach, this study seeks to gain a perspective from non-affiliated, non-scientist (NA/NS) IRB members about the process in which they participate. Findings suggest a need for clarification regarding whom NA/NS IRB members represent. They also suggest that NA/NS IRB members’ experiences could be improved by an increased show of respect from the IRB chair, other members, and staff; efforts to make participation more convenient for these volunteer members; and training tailored specifically to NA/NS members. Further research on this important and understudied topic is needed to determine best practice and policy recommendations.     

Public Service Quality Improvements: A Case for Exemption from IRB Review of Public Administration Research

Should the exemption from Institutional Review Board (IRB) evaluations currently in place for quality improvements research be extended to public administration research that addresses questions of improving the quality of public service delivery? As a means to both reduce the level of disdain held by a group of social science researchers for IRBs and to reduce the cost of review for minimal risk studies, I argue here that much of the current public administration research should also be exempted from normal processes of review by IRBs on the basis of their similarity to Quality Improvements (QI) research, a category of studies already granted exemption. This argument dovetails provisions currently in place for studies of public service and public benefit, but reframes these exemptions in the language of “quality improvements,” which may be a more comfortable language for IRBs concerned to demonstrate compliance for review of all fields. To expedite this argument into the practices of IRBs, I included a checklist that researchers could use to self-identify their studies as QI, not research as such.     

Research Subjects with Limited English Proficiency: Ethical and Legal Issues

In this article, we examine Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies, international guidelines, and federal regulations and guidance for dealing with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) research subjects. We show that federal and international guidance concerning this topic is insufficient, and there is considerable variation in IRB policies. While some IRBs have thorough and useful policies, others do not. Many IRBs do not provide researchers and IRB members with answers to several important questions relating to language barriers in research. We recommend that federal agencies, international organizations, IRBs, and researchers take steps to fill in the gaps in guidance and policy to help insure that LEP populations will receive equitable and ethical treatment in research.     

Research subjects with limited English proficiency: ethical and legal issues

In this article, we examine Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies, international guidelines, and federal regulations and guidance for dealing with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) research subjects. We show that federal and international guidance concerning this topic is insufficient, and there is considerable variation in IRB policies. While some IRBs have thorough and useful policies, others do not. Many IRBs do not provide researchers and IRB member with answers to several important questions relating to language barriers in research. We recommend that federal agencies, international organizations, IRBs, and researchers take steps to fill in the gaps in guidance and policy to help insure that LEP populations will receive equitable and ethical treatment in research.     

Testing drugs in pediatric populations: The FDA mandate

On November 27, 1998 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a new rule requiring that drugs and biological products be tested in pediatric populations. Since voluntary testing in pediatric populations had not resulted in a significant increase in pediatric labeling of drugs, stronger measures were needed to ensure that infants and children would receive the benefits of properly tested drugs and biologies. The mandate for pediatric testing raises a core ethical question: How should the need for validated treatments that benefit children as a group be weighed against the obligation to protect individual child subjects of research? The preamble to the new rule claims that adherence to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines will provide adequate protection to individual subjects. Yet the special protections provided to children in these guidelines are not required by the new FDA rule, and have never been obligatory for research that is regulated by the FDA. While the new rule does not necessitate or encourage violation of these standards, the rule does not pay adequate attention to them nor clarify what role they should play in IRB review of protocols under FDA regulation.     

Too Many Rationales,Not Enough Reason: A Call to Examine the Goals of Including Lay Members on Institutional Review Boards

Every major U.S. commission appointed to review Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as well as numerous reports and scholarly articles have recommended increasing the number of lay (nonscientist and unaffiliated) members on IRBs. Meanwhile, qualitative studies have shown that lay IRB members experience confusion about their roles, including ambiguity whether their roles are different from other members of the board. Without articulating the unique reasons why unaffiliated and nonscientist members are needed, IRBs have little guidance on how to recruit and train these members, and how many should be at the table. By looking back through the history of IRB regulations, policies, and commentaries we can articulate unique contributions these members can make. Only with these contributions in mind can we make arguments for how to best achieve them and make the case that increasing their numbers is necessary.     

Anticipated Ethics and Regulatory Challenges in PCORnet: The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network

PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, seeks to establish a robust national health data network for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. This article reports the results of a PCORnet survey designed to identify the ethics and regulatory challenges anticipated in network implementation. A 12-item online survey was developed by leadership of the PCORnet Ethics and Regulatory Task Force; responses were collected from the 29 PCORnet networks. The most pressing ethics issues identified related to informed consent, patient engagement, privacy and confidentiality, and data sharing. High priority regulatory issues included IRB coordination, privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, and data sharing. Over 150 IRBs and five different approaches to managing multisite IRB review were identified within PCORnet. Further empirical and scholarly work, as well as practical and policy guidance, is essential if important initiatives that rely on comparative effectiveness research are to move forward.     

The Role of Intuition in Risk/Benefit Decision-Making in Human Subjects Research

One of the key principles of ethical research involving human subjects is that the risks of research to should be acceptable in relation to expected benefits. Institutional review board (IRB) members often rely on intuition to make risk/benefit decisions concerning proposed human studies. Some have objected to using intuition to make these decisions because intuition is unreliable and biased and lacks transparency. In this article, I examine the role of intuition in IRB risk/benefit decision-making and argue that there are practical and philosophical limits to our ability to reduce our reliance on intuition in this process. The fact that IRB risk/benefit decision-making involves intuition need not imply that it is hopelessly subjective or biased, however, since there are strategies that IRBs can employ to improve their decisions, such as using empirical data to estimate the probability of potential harms and benefits, developing classification systems to guide the evaluation of harms and benefits, and engaging in moral reasoning concerning the acceptability of risks.     

Physicians' Understanding of Consent Requirements for Phase I Clinical Trials in Cognitively Impaired or Highly Vulnerable Patients

We investigated physicians' attitudes about entering patients who cannot give informed consent or who are of a vulnerable population into clinical trials. A survey instrument asked a nationwide sample of practicing physicians about whether ten hypothetical patients could be enrolled in a phase I clinical trials. The impact of demographic variables on the number of scenarios viewed as completely or somewhat acceptable was analyzed via student's T tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) as applicable. All significant (p < 0.01) variables were entered into a multiple logistic regression model. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that at least one case scenario was acceptable. A majority of those who conduct clinical trials (62%), who had training in the ethics of clinical research (78%), and who sit on institutional review boards (IRBs) (83%) approved of at least one case scenario. Physicians approved of the entry of some patients who cannot give informed consent or who are of a vulnerable population into clinical trials. More effective education on the guidelines involving clinical research should be available to practicing physicians, residents, and medical students. There should also be assurance that physicians who conduct clinical trials or who sit on IRBs have the requisite knowledge about the ethics of clinical research.     

Reforming the oversight of multi-site clinical research: a review of two possible solutions

The current system for the ethical oversight of clinical research suffers from structural, procedural, and performance assessment problems. Initially conceived primarily to handle local investigator-initiated single-site studies, the system of institutionally-based committee review has become progressively more inefficient given the increased prevalence of commercially or federally sponsored multi-center trials. To date, proposed solutions do not adequately address these problems. Beginning with a review of these structural, procedural, and performance assessment problems, this article will then consider two proposals for addressing these deficiencies: (a) regional ethics organizations; and (b) IRBNet, a newly developed web-based program for cooperative IRB review. The strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches will be evaluated in light of recent experience with centralized review. The proposal to establish a system of regional ethics organizations presents a comprehensive approach to many of the problems faced by the current system. However, IRBNet offers an immediate and feasible solution to many of the problems faced by the review of multi-site clinical studies.     

Neurobiological research involving human subjects: Perspectives from the office for protection from research risks

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations at 45 CFR 46 require that all human subjects research supported by HHS be reviewed and approved by a local Institutional Review Board (IRB). Investigators may not involve human subjects in research without their informed consent, and additional safeguards are required when subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence. Application of the regulations to neurobiological research is discussed.     

Comparison of Conflict of Interest Policies and Reported Practices in Academic Medical Centers in the United States

The authors reviewed the conflict of interest policies of 9 academic medical centers in the United States and interviewed members of the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Conflict of Interest Committees (COICs) at those institutions. They found that many institutions used processes for reporting and managing conflicts of interest that were more decentralized than the processes described in their policies. Also, most institutions had no clear and comprehensive policy to guide investigators regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest to potential research participants. Considerable differences in understanding of conflict of interest policies were observed between IRB and COIC officials.     

Comparison of conflict of interest policies and reported practices in academic medical centers in the United States

The authors reviewed the conflict of interest policies of 9 academic medical centers in the United States and interviewed members of the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Conflict of Interest Committees (COICs) at those institutions. They found that many institutions used processes for reporting and managing conflicts of interest that were more decentralized than the processes described in their policies. Also, most institutions had no clear and comprehensive policy to guide investigators regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest to potential research participants. Considerable differences in understanding of conflict of interest policies were observed between IRB and COIC officials.     

Guinea Pigs on the payroll: The ethics of paying research subjects

Regulatory bodies and scholars have traditionally conceptualized biomedical research on healthy subjects in the same way as research on patients. Guidelines and regulations have portrayed payment to a healthy subject as a potential constraint, or “undue influence,”; on the subject's free consent. In this essay we suggest an alternative way of conceptualizing research on healthy subjects, which sees the basic issue not as one of undue influence but as one of justice. Healthy subjects generally enroll in research protocols not for humanitarian reasons but for the money they will receive. Many of these protocols are conducted by profit‐driven corporations. Yet current guidelines and regulations prohibit subjects from negotiating for fair payment for the risks, discomforts and inconveniences they undergo, and IRBs are not staffed adequately to monitor the subject's safety. We propose to remedy the situation by regulating payment to healthy subjects as a labor relation.