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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Simon N. Whitney, Kirsten Alcser, Carl Schneider, Laurence B. McCullough, Amy L. McGuire, Robert J. Volk
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