What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive?
What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/08989620214683
复制
发表时间：
2002-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Forsberg, Carl P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
De Vries, Raymond G;Forsberg, Carl P
机构审查委员会（IRB）已经成为研究人员、研究对象和研究伦理学家最喜欢的替罪羊。研究人员指责IRB的阻挠，在研究的道路上设置不必要的和过于官僚的路障，并减缓科学的进步（While，1995）。科学家们抱怨他们被迫做的“跳圈”，而自愿为IRB服务的研究人员发现管理他们工作的规则和规定是繁重的，而且往往是不必要的。威斯康星州大学的一位儿科学教授指出，IRB被迫遵守“与受试者保护无关”的程序和文书工作，他将一项特别令人讨厌的规定--要求IRB每年重新审查已批准的方案--比作联邦航空管理局要求航空公司飞行员，而不是空乘人员，Mueller和Furedy（2001）都是心理学家，他们担心围绕IRB审查成长起来的“名副其实的行业”，并指出IRB的结构是为了审查医学研究，而不是社会科学研究。从他们的角度来看，IRB系统假定“医学研究人员关注的伦理问题......与校园里的每个部门都有关。”研究补充和替代疗法的研究人员对IRB的投诉水平相似（Fieldnotes，DeVries）。与此同时，研究对象的倡导者指责IRB没有这样做，
Institutional review boards (IRBs) have become a favorite whipping boy of researchers, research subjects, and research ethicists. Researchers accuse IRBs of being obstructionist, placing unnecessary and overly bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of research, and slowing the progress of science (While, 1995). Scientists complain about the “hoop-jumping” they are forced to do, whereas researchers who volunteer their time to serve on IRBs find the rules and regulations governing their work to be onerous and often unnecessary. Noting that IRBs are forced to comply with procedures and paperwork that “are only remotely related to the protection of subjects,” a professor of pediatrics from the University of Wisconsin likened a particularly bothersome rule—the requirement that IRBs re-review approved protocols on an annual basis—to the Federal Aviation Administration requiring airline pilots, not flight attendants, to document that each tray table is in its upright and locked position (Black, 2000).Mueller and Furedy (2001), both psychologists, worry about the “veritable industry” that has grown up around IRB review and note that IRBs are structured to review medical, not social scientific, research. From their perspective, the IRB system presumes that “the ethical issues which preoccupy medical researchers are… relevant to every department on campus.” Researchers who study complementary and alternative therapies level similar complaints against IRBs (Fieldnotes, DeVries). Meanwhile, advocates for research subjects fault IRBs for not doing