-
As more sophisticated imaging technologies are used in research, investigators and IRBs must grapple with an unintended side effect an increase in incidental findings (IF), or new health data unrelated to the study that is revealed about participants.
-
Researchers might find it tempting to collect data for socio-behavioral studies from social websites like Facebook. Their appeal is having fairly easy access and viewing a broad range of behavioral information.
-
An IRB looking to recruit a good non-scientist to the board may have to look no further than its own institution's medical library.
-
IRBs dealing with international or high-risk research can find some guidance on how to handle all stakeholders in studies in the recently-revised Good Participatory Practice Guidelines for Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials (GPP).
-
IRBs at academic research centers often review international infectious diseases research that can raise red flags regarding privacy, confidentiality, and vulnerability.
-
Researchers often criticize IRBs and see them as barriers to research.
-
A year after its public meeting on the Support study, the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) issued a draft guidance to clarify its thinking on the disclosure of reasonably foreseeable risks in standard of care research.
-
For years now, IRB managers have been developing and using tools, including checklists and templates. The goal is to improve IRB review consistency and to expedite the approval turnaround process. While checklists and tools are useful, they can also be a problem.
-
Human research protection programs (HRPPs) are poised for the next level of evolution as todays controversies push research ethics in new directions.
-
IRB board member self-evaluations are crucial for determining how members view their IRB service and measuring the performance of the HRPP itself. But IRB administrators who are looking for self-evaluation tools may have a hard time deciding where to start, or which issues should be the focus.