Archives
Boards that oversee human-subject research need overhaul
Mark Reutter,
Business & Law Editor
217-333-0568; mreutter@illinois.edu
11/9/05
CHAMPAIGN, Ill.
— University Institutional Review Boards, which oversee research
involving human subjects, need to be revamped to avoid the “mission
creep” that is threatening academic freedom and restricting research
on the nation’s campuses, according to a report by University
of Illinois researchers and scholars.
The report,
“Improving the System for Protecting Human Subjects: Counteracting
IRB ‘Mission Creep,’ ” lays out recommendations to
help IRBs better balance their mission.
A public discussion of the report will be held from 3 to 6 p.m. Nov.
17 (Thursday) at the Max L. Rowe Auditorium of the Law Building, 504
E. Pennsylvania Ave., Champaign. The discussion will feature a speech
by Steven J. Breckler, executive director for science at the American
Psychological Association.
Review boards were established in the 1960s to examine medical and biological
research involving human subjects in the wake of several scandals involving
unethical or harmful human experiments funded by federal dollars. The
boards have since evolved into review mechanisms for nearly all research
involving human subjects at educational and medical-research institutions.
Ironically, according to C.K. Gunsalus, an Illinois law and medicine professor who is the report’s main author, the red
tape caused by some IRB panels has bred contempt among researchers rather
than promote better understanding of the importance of ethical conduct.
The report calls upon universities and professional organizations to
gather data on the effectiveness of IRBs, develop “best practices”
standards for the boards and institute more flexible regulations for
social science research.
IRB regulations originally were applied just to medical institutions
that received federal research grants to study human subjects. Over
time, universities have extended the rules to review research both financed
and not financed by the taxpayer.
The “mission creep” encouraged by universities to avoid
potential human-subject scandals or lawsuits has been the source of
much consternation among researchers who sometimes must submit reams
of paperwork in order to justify routine surveys and interviews.
“Too much time is spent on form over substance in the IRB process,”
Gunsalus said, which delays research and can impair the integrity of
study designs without any evidence of correcting possible abuse.
The report recommends that IRBs develop a priority system to concentrate
on research that poses the greatest potential for human-subject harm.
“It is important to focus IRB scrutiny and resources where they
are most needed and where they are most appropriate,” the report
noted. “We must abandon the ‘one-size-fits-all’ mindset
for identifying and reviewing all covered research.”
Because of the biomedical roots of the oversight system, many campus
IRBs apply medical protocols to social science disciplines where there
is little risk that a poorly designed protocol could result in serious
injury. Gunsalus cites the example of an English professor writing an
autobiographical essay who was investigated for not seeking IRB approval
before writing a memoir.
Another recommendation calls for journalism and oral history to be exempt
from IRB regulations. “Such professional activities are quite
distinct from biomedical research. Concerns about the conduct of these
activities are better left to those bodies, such as department reviews,
that are competent to judge them,” the report said.
In general, the report calls for a more commonsensical approach to proper
ethical conduct and informed consent.
The report is the outgrowth of an April 2003 conference convened by
the Illinois Center for Advanced Study,
which gathered researchers to discuss human-subject research, academic
freedom and IRB management.
In addition to Breckler’s presentation, the Nov. 17 public discussion
will include comments by members of the report’s steering committee.
The steering committee includes Edward M. Bruner, professor of anthropology;
Nicholas C. Burbules, professor of educational
policy studies; Leon Dash, professor of Afro-American
studies, of journalism and of law; Matthew W. Finkin, professor of law; Joseph P. Goldberg,
professor of clinical medicine;
William T. Greenough, professor of psychology and director of the Center for Advanced Study; Gregory A. Miller, professor
of psychology; and Michael G. Pratt, professor of business
administration.
