The purpose of this column is to consider if research using only an interview should be evaluated by an institutional review board (IRB) or if it may be considered exempt. A review of atrocities committed by researchers both in the biomedical and psychosocial domains will be considered as a backdrop to the discussion. Issues that plague IRBs will be examined including lack of transparency, overreach of the process, and stipulations that change the nature of research. Finally, recommendations for reform will be entertained.
BeecherH. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274, 1354-1360.
2.
BorensteinJ. (2008). The expanding purview: Institutional review boards and the review of human subjects research. Accountability in Research, 15, 188-204.
3.
BozemanB.SladeC.HirschP. (2009). Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: Toward a better institutional review board. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1549-1556.
4.
DyregrovK. M.DieserudG.HjelmelandH. M.StraitonM.RasmussenM. L.KnizekB. L.LeenaarsA. A. (2011). Meaning-making through psychological autopsy interviews: The value of participating in qualitative research for those bereaved by suicide. Death Studies, 35, 685-710.
GunsalusC. K.BrunerE. M.BurbulesN. C.DashL.FinkinM.GoldbergJ. P.…PrattM. G. (2006). The Illinois white paper-Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB “mission creep”. The Center for Advanced Study Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902995
7.
KimW. O. (2012). Institutional review board (IRB) and ethical issues in clinical research. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 62(1), 3-12.
8.
LoBiondo-WoodG.HaberJ. (2010). Nursing research Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier.
ParkerT. S.WamplerK. S. (2006). Changing emotion: The use of therapeutic storytelling. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(2), 155-156.
11.
PenceG. E (2015). Medical ethics Accounts of groundbreaking cases(7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
12.
Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. pt. 46 (2009).
13.
RothmanD. J. (1982). Were Tuskegee & Willowbrook “studies in nature”?The Hastings Center Report,12(2), 5-7.
14.
SavulescuJ.SpriggsM. (2002). The hexamethonium asthma study and the death of a normal volunteer in research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(1), 3-4.
15.
SontagM. (2012). Research ethics and institutional review boards The influence of moral constraints on emotion research. Politics and The Life Sciences, 31(1-2), 67-79.
16.
WhiteR. F. (2007). Institutional review board mission creep The common rule, social science, and the nanny state. The Independent Review, 11(4), 547-564.
17.
WilsonR. F. (2010). The death of Jesse Gelsinger: New evidence of the influence of money and prestige in human research. American Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics, 36, 295-325.