The purpose, composition, and function of an institutional review board: Balancing priorities

Respiratory Care

Volumn 53, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1330-1336

  Enfield, Kyle B ^a   Truwit, Jonathon D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Common rule; Federal law; Institutional review board; IRB; Research ethics

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; ETHICS; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROTECTION; RESPONSIBILITY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; REVIEW; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 58149158105     PISSN: 00201324     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Sugarman J. The role of institutional support in protecting human research subjects. Acad Med 2000;75(7):687-692. (Pubitemid 30619360)
2. Kass NE, Sugarman J, Faden R, Schoch-Spana M. Trust, the fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Cent Rep 996;26(5):25-29.
3. Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under control council law. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office; 1949: 181-182.
4. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional review board guidebook: introduction. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb- introduction.htm. Accessed August 6, 2008.
5. Katz RV, Russell SL, Kegeles SS, Kressin NR, Green BL, Wang MQ, et al. The Tuskegee Legacy Project: willingness of minorities to participate in biomedical research. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2006;17(4):698-715. (Pubitemid 44952204)
6. National Institutes of Health: The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomoedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. April 18, 1979. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html. Accessed August 6, 2008.
7. National Institutes of Health. Office of Human Subjects Research. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 public welfare Part 46 protection of human subjects. Revised June 23, 2005. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/ 45cfr46.htm. Accessed August 6, 2008.
8. United States Department of Education. Grants and contracts: information about the protection of human subjects in research supported by the Department of Education - overview. http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/humansub/overview. html. Accessed August 6, 2008.
9. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Institutional Review Boards; Report and Recommendations. Washington: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1978.
10. United States Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Part 56. Institutional review boards. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=56. Accessed August 6, 2008.
11. United States Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Part 50: protection of human subjects. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=50. Accessed August 6, 2008.
12. United States Department of Health and Human Services: National Institutes of Health. Institutional review boards and the HIPAA privacy rule. Revised July 8, 2004. http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/irbandprivacyrule. asp. Accessed August 6, 2008.
13. Business Law - Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose and Podolsky. http://www.sskrplaw.com/publications/bioethics.html. Accessed August 6, 2008.
14. Malakoff D. Clinical research: flawed cancer study leads to shake-up at University of Oklahoma. Science 2000;289(5480):706-707. (Pubitemid 30650163)
15. Ramsay S. Johns Hopkins takes responsibility for volunteer's death. Lancet 2001;358(9277):213.
16. Comment in Lancet 2001;358(9293):1648.
17. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, Beck S, Beaty T, Cutting G. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 2003;290(3):360-366. (Pubitemid 37430522)
18. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Mechaber AJ, Eacker A, Harper W, Massie FS, et al. Medical education research and IRB review: an analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Acad Med 2007;82(7):654-660. (Pubitemid 47013349)
19. Hayes GJ, Hayes SC, Dykstra T. A survey of university institutional review boards: characteristics, policies, and procedures. IRB 1995;17(3):1-6.
20. Rosnow RL, Rotheram-Borus MJ, Ceci SJ, Blanck PD, Koocher GP. The institutional review board as a mirror of scientific and ethical standards. Am Psychol 1993;48(7):821-826.
21. Schuppli CA, Fraser D. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. J Med Ethics 2007;33(5):294-301.
22. Gawande A. A lifesaving checklist. The New York Times. New York; December 30, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/opinion/30gawande.html?-r= 2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin. Accessed August 6, 2008.