|
|
 |
Listserv Message Center
 |
Institutional Review Boards |
 |
|
|
|
| Posted by: | Kennon Sheldon |
| Title/Position: | Associate Professor |
| School/Organization: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Sent to listserv of: | SPSP |
| Date posted: | November 17th, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
I like Ed Diener’s suggestion of creating rating systems for IRBs, to help them function more effectively and get in our way less. But there is a conflict of interest -- can we be trusted to regulate IRBs, since they are entrusted to regulate us? What if the highest rated IRBs are also the slackest IRBs? Don’t get me wrong, I am very sympathetic to the idea that IRBs have gone too far, because I just had a major grant-funded project shut down for several days (at a cost of $500) because I forgot to submit the URL for the on-line survey to the IRB, even though that URL survey contained only questions previously approved in a Word document. Yes, our IRB was heavy-handed. But on the other hand, I didn’t follow an established procedure. For them, it’s a slippery slope, because it is difficult to tell when it is a merely a trivial detail (my perception) versus a systemic problem with exposure that has to be nipped in the bud. So, yes, IRBs may be helped to be more realistic. But we don’t want them to go past a certain point, where they (and we) are opened to lawsuits because some opportunist wants to exploit a momentary carelessness. It seems a tricky balance.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home Page
