Institutional Review Board Summary

Grady, C. (2010). Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA, 304(10), 1122-1123. Retrieved from http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=186530

| The study involves no more than minimal risk and meets one of the allowable categories of expedited review specified in federal regulations

The first is the informed consent and self determination on behalf of the participants of the research study. Participants must be willing to participate in the research and aware of of any benefits and costs. It is required that all participants are notified of the reasoning of the research, the risks within the conduction of the research and how collected data will be used. Usually plain statements will be given, in plain language that can be understood by the participants outlining what there involvement requires and the aims of the research. Following, participants will be required to sign a consent document outlining that they are aware of the details of the research and agree on

The IRB is a way for participants in research to make sure that their rights as participants are protected and represented fairly in different research projects. The demands of the IRB are simple. The three demands are respect for persons, beneficence and justice. These characteristics are in place to protect the participants in every way possible. The first demand, respect for person, not only means to have respect, but also to be able to provide the utmost protection for the person in a research study depending on the risk factors in the study. Beneficence is the ethics behind the treatment of the participants of the study. This includes the safety and the minimizing any risk factors there may be in the research study. Justice refers to the benefits of the study, meaning the equal treatment of everyone in the study. These are needed as guidelines for researchers to make sure that all researchers are protected in any and every situation they may be put in. As researchers, it is their responsibility to make sure that their participants are protected and the IRB has placed these guidelines so the researchers and the participants know their rights during

The IRB is a very valuable tool for the anthropological field and protecting vulnerable people that researchers want to study. For example, in the case studies of the Tuskegee Experiment, Aboriginal Experiment, and the Yanomami Experiment the IRB would be a valuable tool to prevent this harm and serious injustices from happening again. Although, in the cases of doing basic field work and using anonymous questionnaires to gain information. The IRB should not have so many regulations in that aspect of research. I believe this way of obtaining information should not be as highly regulated as the latter form of research. The IRB mandates that the researcher must get informed consent, and sign a legal document with the participant’s real name. This tactic for information should be regulated to just documenting the age group and gender of the

IRBs are committees that consist of 5 or more members with varying expertise and diversity that are responsible for reviewing and approving human subjects research activities on behalf of institutions.

Review Ethics boards should be considerate of the patient’s they are using to conduct their research by first having them fill out an agreement to participate in the research. This idea is reinforced by a field researcher who had to get the patients to sign permission slips before interviewing them and the research wouldn’t reveal their identity. The field researcher found this was an effective way to make the patients whom the experiment is being conducted on comfortable and willing to participate. It allows the patients to have a say on whether they are willing to have specific research done on them whether related to psychological reasons such as asking questions or to have biological research

clinical investigators adhere to this informed consent process. Unfortunately, there are no standard tools to assess the results of the consent process. This prevents the IRBs from

The research was conducted under the terms of an application for ethical approval for research

The Belmont Report was created in order to prevent unhuman research such as the Guatemala Syphilis Experiment (case 1). The Common Rule is a version of the report that founded the Institutional Review Boards. IRB manage all human research requests. These organized assigned codes are an acceptable way to prevent unmoral human research. At the same time the IRB can take a very long time to accept projects that are actually not part their rules.

Therefore, the researchers question was aligned with the design, method, and how information was collected and analyzed. Furthermore, prior to conducting the research and collecting any data from future participants the researchers’ research proposal was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Leedy & Ormrod (2016), states that prior to any data or interview with future participants the research proposal must be submitted for approval. With that said, approval was granted for the researchers to conduct the study and proceed with the analysis.

“Respect for human beings involves giving due scope to peoples capacity to make their own decisions. In the research context, this normally requires that participation be the result of a choice made by the participants” (NHMR, 2007, p.3).  Freegard 2012 (p.60), states that “respecting the rights of others,” includes a responsibility for Health professionals “to let others know about their rights” and that this forms the basis of an informed consent.

IRB standards were met - Participants were asked to sign consent form at the beginning of the class indicating their willingness to participate in the evaluation. All participants were given a card to mail in if they did not want to be contacted for the follow-up telephone calls.

The principle of gaining informed consent originated from the Nuremberg Code of 1946 after it was revealed that prisoners of war were abused emotionally, physically and mentally by German researchers conducting unethical research on them (Beals, Sebring, & Crawford, 1996). The main principium of this Code of ethics insists on informed consent as an imperative to ensure the protection of the research participants’ rights, as well as their general wellbeing. These rights include, but are not limited to, the potential participants being well informed about the project, about their right to decline or withdraw at any time during the research, about any possible risks associated with the research, and their rights to expect absolute privacy and confidentiality (Vernhagen et al., 2005).

It was formed in 2001 to replace the International Accounting Standards Committee (Knubley, 2015). Under the umbrella of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation Constitution, IASB is also responsible for technical matters of the IFRS foundation (Knubley, 2015).