Irbs and Psychological Science: Ensuring a Collaborative Relationship

APA Board of Scientific Affairs Working Group

10 Pages Posted: 8 May 2006

See all articles by Thomas Eissenberg

Thomas Eissenberg

Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Psychology

Sangeeta Panicker

American Psychological Association

Sheri Berenbaum

Pennsylvania State University

Norma Epley

University of South Florida

Michael Fendrich

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Rosemary Kelso

Virginia Commonwealth University

Louis Penner

University of South Florida

Mary Simmerling

Adler University; Cornell University, Weill Cornell Medical College

Date Written: April 2006

Abstract

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally-mandated, locally-administered groups charged with evaluating risks and benefits of human participant research at their institution. To a greater or lesser extent, risks and potential benefits exist in virtually any research with human participants, including research in the behavioral/social sciences. Federal law and APA standards require IRB review of all human participant research projects. IRB review and approval will likely bring an investigator into contact with two inter-related groups: the IRB and the professional staff that administers IRB activities. Due to a variety of factors, including increased IRB and faculty workload and enhanced federal oversight, the potential for conflict among IRB members, IRB administrators, and investigators may be great. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that this potential for conflict may be particularly high for behavioral scientists, and that dissatisfaction with IRB review may jeopardize compliance with federal regulations, research participant protection, and research itself. The purpose of this paper is to suggest specific strategies that IRB members, IRB administrators, and investigators can use to avoid potential conflict and facilitate human research participant protection. We contend that when these groups understand and face these responsibilities collaboratively, conflict will be minimized and safe, ethical, high quality research will flourish.

Keywords: research, ethics, IRB

Suggested Citation

Eissenberg, Thomas and Panicker, Sangeeta and Berenbaum, Sheri and Epley, Norma and Fendrich, Michael and Kelso, Rosemary and Penner, Louis and Simmerling, Mary, Irbs and Psychological Science: Ensuring a Collaborative Relationship (April 2006). APA Board of Scientific Affairs Working Group , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=899605 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.899605

Thomas Eissenberg (Contact Author)

Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Psychology ( email )

1101 E. Marshall Street
Richmond, VA 23298-0565
United States

Sangeeta Panicker

American Psychological Association ( email )

Washington, DC
United States

Sheri Berenbaum

Pennsylvania State University ( email )

University Park, PA 16802
United States

Norma Epley

University of South Florida ( email )

Tampa, FL 33620
United States

Michael Fendrich

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee ( email )

Chicago, WI 53201
United States

Rosemary Kelso

Virginia Commonwealth University ( email )

1015 Floyd Avenue
Richmond, VA 23284
United States

Louis Penner

University of South Florida ( email )

Tampa, FL 33620
United States

Mary Simmerling

Adler University ( email )

17 N. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
United States

Cornell University, Weill Cornell Medical College ( email )

1300 York Avenue
New York, NY 10065
United States

HOME PAGE: http://https://vivo.weill.cornell.edu/display/cwid-mcs2006

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
146
Abstract Views
1,850
rank
249,976
PlumX Metrics