Composed of scientific and technical experts and lay members, thousands of research ethics committees—Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States—must identify and assess the potential risks to human research subjects, and balance those risks against the potential benefits of the research. IRBs handle risk and its uncertainty by adopting a version of the precautionary principle. To assess scientific merit, IRBs use a tacit ``sanguinity principle,'' which treats uncertainty as inevitable, even desirable, in scientific progress. In balancing human subjects risks and scientific benefits, IRBs use uncertainty as a boundary-ordering device that allows the mediation of the science and ethics aspects of their decisions. One effect is the entangling of methodological and ethical review. Some have suggested these should be more clearly separated, but decisions by research ethics committees depend in part on the negotiating space created by incommensurable approaches to uncertainty.
Agnew, B.1999. NIH invites activists into the inner sanctum. Science283(5410):1999-2001.
2.
Anand, P.2002. Public health. Decision-making when science is ambiguous . Science295(5561):1839.
3.
Bacchetti, P., L. Wolf, M. Segal, and C. McCulloch.2005. Ethics and sample size. American Journal of Epidemiology161(2):105-10.
4.
Barke, R.2002. Authorities of knowledge in research centers: The role of research ethics committees in peer review. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the World Congress of Sociology , July 7-13 in Brisbane, Australia.
5.
Barke, R. and H. Jenkins-Smith .1993. Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis13(4):425-39.
6.
Bledsoe, C., B. Sherin, A. Galinsky, N. Headley, C. Heimer, E. Kjeldgaard, J. Lindgren, J. Miller, M. Roloff, and D. Uttal.2007. Regulating Creativity: Research and Survival in the IRB Iron Cage. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2):593-641.
7.
Callaham, M., R. Knopp, and E. Gallagher.2002. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: Two randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association287(21):2781-3.
8.
Casarett, D., J. Karlawish, and J. Moreno.2002. A taxonomy of value in clinical research . IRB: Ethics and Human Research24(6): 1-6.
9.
Chang, R., ed. 1997. Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Churchill, L., D. Nelson, G. Henderson, N. King, A. Davis, E. Leahey, and B. Wilfond.2003. Assessing benefits in clinical research: Why diversity in benefit assessment can be risky. IRB: Ethics and Human Research25(3):1-8.
11.
Collins, H., and R. Evans.2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science32(2):235-96.
12.
Collins, H., and T. Pinch.2005. Dr. Golem: How to think about medicine . Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press .
13.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.2003. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva, Switzerland: CIOMS.
14.
Covello, V.1992. Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication research. In Communication yearbook 15, ed. S. Deetz, 359-73. Newbury Park and London: Sage.
15.
Cranor, C.1993. Regulating toxic substances: A philosophy of science and the law. New York: Oxford Univ Press .
16.
Department of Health (UK).2005. Report of the Ad-Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees. London: Department of Health.
17.
Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky.1982. Risk and culture. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.
18.
Dunbar, K.1999. How scientists build models in vivo science as a window on the scientific mind. In Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery, eds. L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, and P. Thagard, 85-99. New York: Kluwer .
19.
Emanuel, E., D. Wendler, and C. Grady.2000. What makes clinical research ethical ? Journal of the American Medical Association283(20):2701-11.
20.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).2000 . Comments on the Use of Data from the Testing of Human Subjects: A Report by the Science Advisory Board and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. EPA-SAB-EC-00-017. Washington, D.C.: EPA. Available at www.epa.gov/science1/pdf/ec0017.pdf .
21.
Epstein, S.1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge . Berkeley: Univ of California Press .
22.
Foster, Kenneth R., David E. Bernstein, and Peter W. Huber .1993. Phantom risk: Scientific inference and the law. Cambridge: MIT Press.
23.
Freedman, B.1987. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine317(3):141-5.
24.
Gardiner, S.2006. A core precautionary principle. Journal of Political Philosophy14(1):33-60.
25.
Goldman, J. and M.D. Katz.1982. Inconsistency and institutional review boards. Journal of the American Medical Association248(2):197-202.
26.
Goldstein, B.1999. The precautionary principle and scientific research are not antithetical. Environmental Health Perspectives107(12):A594-A595.
27.
Groth, E.1991. Communicating with consumers about food safety and risk issues. Food Technology45(5):248-53.
28.
Gunsalus, C.Kristina, Edward Bruner, Nicholas Burbules, Leon DeCosta Dash Jr. , Matthew Finkin, Joseph Goldberg, William Greenough, Gregory Miller, and Michael G. Pratt.2006. The Illinois White Paper-Improving the System for Protecting Human Subjects: Counteracting IRB Mission Creep, U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE06-016 (http://ssrn.com/abstract=902995 ).
29.
Hamburger, P.2005. The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards , Supreme Court Review, 271-354. Accessed Sept 24, 2008, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=721363.
30.
Hund, E., D. Massart, and J. Smeyers-Verbecke .2001. Operational definitions of uncertainty. Trends in Analytical Chemistry20(8):394-406.
31.
Institute of Medicine. (2002). Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants . eds. Federman, D., Hanna, K., and Rodriguez, L.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
32.
Jefferson, T., P. Alderson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff.2002. Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association287(21):2784-6.
33.
Jonas, H.1969. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus98(Spring 1969 issue):219-47.
34.
Jonsen, Albert R., and Stephen Toulmin .1988. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.
35.
Keiger, Dale and Sue De Pasquale, S. ``Trials and Tribulations,'' John Hopkins Magazine, February, 2002. Accessed September 24, 2008, from http://www.jhu.edu/∼jhumag/0202web/.
36.
Kelly, P., and M. Johnson. (2005). Just-in-time IRB review: capitalizing on scientific merit review to improve human subjects research compliance. IRB. 27(2): 6-10.
37.
Kitcher, P.2001. Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
Klahr, D., and Simon, H.A.2001. What have psychologists (and others) discovered about the process of scientific discovery? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(3):75-9.
39.
Kuhn, T.1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press.
40.
Lane, Eliesh O'Neil.2005. Decision-making in the human subjects review system . Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
41.
Levine, Robert, J.1986. Ethics and regulation of clinical research. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Urban and Schwarzenberg.
42.
Mann, Michael, D., and Ernest D. Prentice .2004. Should IACUCs review scientific merit of animal research projects?Lab Animal33(1):26-31.
43.
Marris, C., I.H. Langford, and T. O'Riordan.1998. A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis18(5):635-47.
44.
Martinson, Brian C., Melissa S. Anderson, and Raymond de Vries .2005. Scientists behaving badly . Nature435(7043):737-8.
45.
Montague, P.1998. Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly586, February 19.
46.
National Academy of Public Administration.2001. A Study Of The National Science Foundation's Criteria For Project Selection, February.
47.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.1979. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office Accessed September 24, 2008, from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html .
48.
National Institutes of Health.1998. Evaluation of NIH Implementation of Section 491 of the Public Health Service Act, Mandating a Program of Protection for Research Subjects, Final Report (Bell Report). NIH Office of Extramural Research, June 15. Washington, DC: NIH Office of Extramural Research.
49.
National Institutes of Health.2007. Guide for assigned reviewers' preliminary comments on research grant applications (R01). Bethesda, MD: NIH Center for Scientific Review. NRC/ NAS Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
50.
National Research Council.2004. Intentional human dosing studies for EPA regulatory purposes: Scientific and ethical issues. Washington: National Academies Press.
51.
National Science Foundation, 2008. Science and engineering indicators 2008. Washington: National Science Foundation.
52.
Nersessian, N.1999. Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery, eds. Nancy Nersessian, Lorenzo Magnani, and Paul Thagard, 5-22. New York : Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers .
53.
Office of Human Research Protection.1993. IRB guidebook. Washington: Department of Health and Human Services.
54.
O'Riordan, Tim, and James Cameron.1994. Interpreting the precautionary principle . London: Earthscan Publications .
55.
Pate-Cornell, E.2002. Risk and uncertainty analysis in government safety decisions . Risk Analysis22(3):633-46.
56.
Pellizoni, L.2003. Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environmental Values12(2):195-224.
57.
Peto, Richard, and Colin Baigent, 1998. Trials: The next 50 years. British Medical Journal317(7167):1170-1.
58.
Pielke, Roger, Jr., and Daniel Sarewitz .2002. Wanted: Scientific leadership on climate. Issues in Science and Technology. Accessed September 24, 2008. http://issues.org/19.2/p_pielke.htm# . (accessed February 2007).
59.
Porter, Joan, P.1986. What are the ideal characteristics of unaffiliated/nonscientist IRB members?IRB.8(3):1-6.
60.
---. 1987. How unaffiliated/nonscientist members of institutional review boards see their roles. IRB9(6):1-6.
61.
Romanello, S., B. Dervin, and R. Fortner.2003. Sense-making as a methodology to inform interdisciplinary communication of scientific uncertainty of global climate change. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
62.
Ruiz-Canela, Miguel, J.de Irala-Estevez, M.A. Martínez-González, E. Gómez-Gracia, and J. Fernández-Crehuet .2001. Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in clinical trials. Journal of Medical Ethics27(3):172-6.
63.
Sackett, David, L., Straus, W. Richardson, W. Rosenberg, and R. Haynes2000. Evidence-based medicine. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone .
64.
Sackett, David, L.2001. Uncertainty about clinical equipoise. Canadian Medical Association Journal164(13):1831-2.
65.
Sandman, P.M.1987. Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA Journal13:21.
66.
Sarewitz, D.2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse . Environmental Science and Policy7(3), 85-403.
67.
Shackley, Simon, and Brian Wynne.1996. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority . Science, Technology, & Human Values21(3):275-302.
68.
Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer.1985. Leviathan and the air-pump. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press .
69.
Silva, C., H. Jenkins-Smith, and R. Barke.2007. Reconciling scientists' beliefs about radiation risks and social norms: Explaining preferred radiation protection standards. Risk Analysis, 27(3): 755-773.
70.
Slovic, P.1987. Perception of risk. Science236(4799):280-5.
71.
Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. MacGregor.2002. The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York : Cambridge University Press:397-420.
72.
Sunstein, Cass, R.2005. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle . Cambridge Univ. Press.
73.
Trochim, W., and Cappelleri, J.C.1992. Cutoff assignment strategies for enhancing randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials13(3):190-212.
74.
US Department of Health and Human Services.2002. IRB guidebook. Washington, DC.
75.
Van Ness, Peter H., 2001. The concept of risk in biomedical research involving human subjects. Bioethics. 15(4):364-70.
76.
Wald, David S.2004. Bureaucracy of ethics applications. British Medical Journal329(7460):282-4.
77.
Weick, Karl E., and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe .2001. Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. New YorkJossey-Bass.
78.
Weijer, Charles, and Paul B. Miller .2004. When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?Nature Medicine10(6):570-3.
79.
Weinberg, Janice M., and Ken P. Kleinman .2003. Good study design and analysis plans as features of ethical research with humans. IRB: Ethics and Human Research25(5):11-14.
80.
Zehr, Stephen C.2000. Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science9:85-103.
