|
||||
|
||||
The Pathologies of Institutional Review Boards
David A. Hyman University of Illinois - College of Law Regulation, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 42-49, Summer 2007 Abstract: Federal regulations require all research funded by the federal government and involving human subjects to be overseen by an institutional review board (IRB) that evaluates whether the risks to subjects are minimized; whether those risks are reasonable in light of expected benefits; and whether subjects are selected in an equitable manner. IRBs have come under intense criticism since their creation, for obstructing legitimate, low-risk research and approving questionable, high-risk research. The important question to ask about IRBs is not whether they are perfect, but whether they are the "least worst" institutional response to the problem of balancing the marginal cost and marginal benefit of research and research oversight. Even judged by this modest standard, IRBs fall well short.
Keywords: the pathologies of instititional review boards, david a. hyman, federal regulations, IRB, institutional review boards, research, human subjects, federal funding, risks, benefits, criticism, marginal cost, marginal benefit, asymmetry, performance, judicial oversight JEL Classifications: D71, H11, L59 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: July 18, 2007 ; Last revised: July 18, 2007Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||
© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy
This page was served by apollo2 in 0.125 seconds.