A Central purpose of institutional review boards is to preserve and maintain the safety and integrity of human subjects. While this is the manifest purpose, some people might question the actual effects IRBs have on the research enterprise. This paper explores whether IRBs may actually create situations where researchers feel forced to compromise either their research or their personal integrity in order to have research projects approved by institutional review boards. A review of the literature is combined with consideration of current practice and implications. A specific focus examines different views of the function of the IRB process. Several theoretical assumptions emerge which furnish direction for future empirical study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adler, P.A.1985Wheeling And Dealing. New York : Columbia University, Press.
2.
Austin, T.1991Living on the edge: The impact of terrorism upon philippine villagers. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology. 33(1): .
3.
The Belmont Report1979Department Of Health Education And Welfare. Pub. no. (05) 78-0012.
4.
Berg B.L.1989Qualitative Research Methods For The Social Sciences . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
5.
Bower, R.T. and P. de Gasparis1978Ethics In Social Research. New York : Praeger.
6.
Brandt, A.M.1978Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. Hasting Center Report (Dec.):21-29.
7.
Burstein, A.G.1987The virtue machine. American Psychologist (Feb.): 199-202.
8.
Cassell, J.1978Risk and benefit to subjects of fieldwork. American Sociologist.13(August):134-143.
9.
Chambers, E.1980Fieldwork and the law: New contexts for ethical decision making. Social Problems.27(3):330-341.
10.
Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46) 1989Protection Of Human Subjects. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health, Office for Protection from Research Risks.
11.
Dhew1978a Report And Recommendations On Institutional Review Boards. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health Education and Welfare, Pub. no. (05) 78- 0008.
12.
Federal Register1991Federal policy for the protection of human subjects: Notices and rules (Part II). June 18 (FR Doc. 91-14257) 1978 Protection of human subjects: Institutional review boards. November 30 (43 FR56174).
13.
Fields, C.M.1978Universities fear impact of rules to protect research subjects . The Chronicle Of Higher Education (March 12):5-6.
14.
Gray, B.G.1977The functions of human subjects review committees . American Journal Of Psychiatry.134:907-909.
15.
Haney, C., C. Banks, and P. Zimbardo1973Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal Of Criminology And Penology.1:69-97.
16.
Hershey, N. and R. Miller1976Human Experimentation And The Law. Germantown, Md: Aspen Systems Corporation.
17.
Humphreys, L.1970Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex In Public Places. Chicago: Aldine.
18.
Meyer, R.E.1977Subjects' rights, freedom of inquiry, and the future of research in the addictions. American Journal Of Psychiatry.134(8):899-903.
19.
Milgram, S.1963Behavioral study of obedience. Journal Of Abnormal And Social Psychology.67:371-378.
20.
Olesen, V.1979Federal regulations, institutional review boards and qualitative social science research. In Murray L. Wax and Joan Cassell, Federal Regulations: Ethical Issues and Social Research. Boulder Colorado: Westview Press:103-118.
21.
Tewksbury, R.1990Patrons of porn: research notes on the clientele of adult bookstores. Deviant Behavior.11(3):259-272.
22.
U.S. Public Health Service1973Final Report Of The Tuskegee Syphilis Study Ad Hoc Advisory Panel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Public Health Service .
23.
Ward, R.T., S. Krugman, J. Gile, M. Jacobs and D. Bodansky1958Infectious hepatitis. New England Journal Of Medicine.258(9):409-416.
24.
Wax, M.L.1977On fieldworkers and those exposed to fieldwork: Federal regulations and moral issues. Human Organizations.36(3):321-327.
25.
Zimbardo, P.1972Pathology of imprisonment. Society . 9(April):4-8.
