IRB creep: Federal regulations protecting human research subjects and increasing instructors' responsibilities

Issues in Accounting Education

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 31-43

  Riordan, Diane A ^a   Riordan, Michael P ^a  

^a JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Human subjects; Institutional review boards

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054865652     PISSN: 07393172     EISSN: 15587983     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/iace.2009.24.1.31     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Ferraro, F. R., E. Szigeti, K. J. Dawes, and S. Pan. 1999. A survey regarding the University of North Dakota Institutional Review Board: Data, attitudes, and perceptions. Journal of Psychology 133 (3): 272-280.
2. Hunt, B., C. A. Yekel, M. A. Blanchard, D. Elliott, and K. H. Youm. 2002. Symposium: Compliance and concern? Institutional review boards in journalism and mass communication education. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 57 (2): 92-112.
3. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The Belmont Report. 44 Fed. Reg. 23,192.
4. Thacker, E. 2002. Conflicts of interest in institutional-based IRBs versus independent IRBs. Research Practitioner 3: 17-20.
5. U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1996. Information sheets for institutional review boards and clinical investigators. Rockville, MD. Rev. 10/ 95, Reprint 3/ 96.