Footnotes (1)



The Pathologies of Institutional Review Boards

David A. Hyman

Georgetown University

Regulation, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 42-49, Summer 2007

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.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 8

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 Classification: D71, H11, L59

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: July 18, 2007  

Suggested Citation

Hyman, David A., The Pathologies of Institutional Review Boards. Regulation, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 42-49, Summer 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1001483

Contact Information

David A. Hyman (Contact Author)
Georgetown University ( email )
Washington, DC 20057
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 943
Downloads: 146
Download Rank: 159,312
Footnotes:  1