-
Five years ago, a panel of researchers and others involved in social and behavioral sciences convened to explore concerns about the scope and effectiveness of IRB review.
-
When consultant Jeffrey Cooper talks to IRBs about using the flexibility of federal regulations to change their procedures, he can see that the message doesn't always get through.
-
[Editor's note: Valerie Bonham, JD, executive director of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, answers these two questions about the new International Research Panel formed this year by President Barack Obama.]
-
Human research protection program staff at the VA Medical Center in Tuscaloosa, AL, knew there was a problem with the IRB's expedited review process.
-
Everyone does more work with less time these days. So how can an IRB make new board member training effective without being time demanding? One IRB has found that the answer is to hold brief educational sessions during its board meetings.
-
Adverse drug event (ADE) reporting often is inaccurate, has omissions, and sends unnecessary information to IRBs, an expert says.
-
Can the informed consent process actually provide too much information?
-
A data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) can be crucial to protecting participants in higher-risk studies, by reviewing the accumulating study data for potential emerging risks and if necessary, by recommending that a study be changed or even halted as a result.
-
First-in-human clinical trials raise difficult ethical issues for researchers and IRBs because of the uncertainty that accompanies them. Did the preclinical studies that preceded them provide enough information about effectiveness and risks and benefits to proceed with human volunteers?
-
IRB application submissions often lack consistency, have omissions and errors, and other problems that IRBs should teach investigators to anticipate and correct before filing their application. Among these mistakes are policy errors, data security concerns, and other procedural problems.