Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System
<p>We undertook a qualitative e-mail survey of federally-funded principal investigators of their views of the US human subjects protection system, intended to identify the range of investigator attitudes. This was an exploratory study with a 14% response rate. Twenty-eight principal investigat...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Ivyspring International Publisher
2008-01-01
|
Series: | International Journal of Medical Sciences |
Online Access: | http://www.medsci.org/v05p0068.htm |
id |
doaj-21cfc35d45774890a80b3c1f85bc48c5 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-21cfc35d45774890a80b3c1f85bc48c52020-11-24T23:17:50ZengIvyspring International PublisherInternational Journal of Medical Sciences1449-19072008-01-01526872Principal Investigator Views of the IRB SystemSimon N. Whitney, Kirsten Alcser, Carl Schneider, Laurence B. McCullough, Amy L. McGuire, Robert J. Volk<p>We undertook a qualitative e-mail survey of federally-funded principal investigators of their views of the US human subjects protection system, intended to identify the range of investigator attitudes. This was an exploratory study with a 14% response rate. Twenty-eight principal investigators responded; their comments were analyzed to show underlying themes, which are here presented along with supporting quotations.</p> <p>There was consensus that it is important to protect human subjects from research abuse, but disagreement over how well the IRB system is functioning. Some researchers felt that the system is effective and serves its purpose well. Of those who support the system, some endorse its methods, purpose, and daily functioning, as they experience it, without reservation. Others, while expressing some frustration, feel that the purpose is important and their local IRB does its best to make a difficult system work well.</p> <p>Those investigators who were more harshly critical commented on multiple flaws in the system, including (1) consent forms that are inappropriate and incomprehensible, (2) an emphasis on minutiae, and (3) concern with protecting the institution more than research subjects. Respondents told us that the IRB system is a particular burden for research in neurology, emergency medical conditions, repositories, and social sciences in general; a more comprehensive study might identify other problematic areas. Significant concern was expressed about the cost, inefficiency, and irrationality of IRB review. The IRB system works well for some researchers, but our results indicate that other investigators feel the costs outweigh the benefits.</p>http://www.medsci.org/v05p0068.htm |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Simon N. Whitney, Kirsten Alcser, Carl Schneider, Laurence B. McCullough, Amy L. McGuire, Robert J. Volk |
spellingShingle |
Simon N. Whitney, Kirsten Alcser, Carl Schneider, Laurence B. McCullough, Amy L. McGuire, Robert J. Volk Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System International Journal of Medical Sciences |
author_facet |
Simon N. Whitney, Kirsten Alcser, Carl Schneider, Laurence B. McCullough, Amy L. McGuire, Robert J. Volk |
author_sort |
Simon N. Whitney, Kirsten Alcser, Carl Schneider, Laurence B. McCullough, Amy L. McGuire, Robert J. Volk |
title |
Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System |
title_short |
Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System |
title_full |
Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System |
title_fullStr |
Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System |
title_full_unstemmed |
Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System |
title_sort |
principal investigator views of the irb system |
publisher |
Ivyspring International Publisher |
series |
International Journal of Medical Sciences |
issn |
1449-1907 |
publishDate |
2008-01-01 |
description |
<p>We undertook a qualitative e-mail survey of federally-funded principal investigators of their views of the US human subjects protection system, intended to identify the range of investigator attitudes. This was an exploratory study with a 14% response rate. Twenty-eight principal investigators responded; their comments were analyzed to show underlying themes, which are here presented along with supporting quotations.</p> <p>There was consensus that it is important to protect human subjects from research abuse, but disagreement over how well the IRB system is functioning. Some researchers felt that the system is effective and serves its purpose well. Of those who support the system, some endorse its methods, purpose, and daily functioning, as they experience it, without reservation. Others, while expressing some frustration, feel that the purpose is important and their local IRB does its best to make a difficult system work well.</p> <p>Those investigators who were more harshly critical commented on multiple flaws in the system, including (1) consent forms that are inappropriate and incomprehensible, (2) an emphasis on minutiae, and (3) concern with protecting the institution more than research subjects. Respondents told us that the IRB system is a particular burden for research in neurology, emergency medical conditions, repositories, and social sciences in general; a more comprehensive study might identify other problematic areas. Significant concern was expressed about the cost, inefficiency, and irrationality of IRB review. The IRB system works well for some researchers, but our results indicate that other investigators feel the costs outweigh the benefits.</p> |
url |
http://www.medsci.org/v05p0068.htm |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT simonnwhitneykirstenalcsercarlschneiderlaurencebmcculloughamylmcguirerobertjvolk principalinvestigatorviewsoftheirbsystem |
_version_ |
1725583107610902528 |