Institutional Review Boards
Running Head: UNIT 5 ASSIGNMENT
Unit 5 Assignment Template
Candeece Lucas
July 21, 2014
HN410 - Human Services & Delivery
Kaplan University
IRB is an abbreviation for the institutional review board. Informed by the need to review human biomedical and behavioral research to the mutual benefit of the researcher and the sample population oversight, responsibilities have to be designated to an impartial body. In light of this, the IRB is also commonly referred to as the independent ethics committee or the ethical review board. Indeed, biomedical and behavioral research on humans is not a light discipline as some of the research tenets border on life and death. It is thus important to evaluate whether the research being conducted has manageable or no risk to the human being. The IRB thus comes in by performing a risk benefit analysis aimed at identifying whether or not the research in question should be conducted or not (Byerly, 2009). It is therefore noteworthy that IRB is informed by facts in terms of risk to determine whether the research in question is worthwhile and can be conducted.
As earlier identified, the priority for IRB is to protect the human subjects involved or ensure that those involved in the research do not face physical or psychological harm. In the United States for example, the IRB has divided the mandate to the food and drug administration (FDA) and the department of health and human services. The IRB has three identifiable methods of review namely: exempt review, expedited review and full review. The exempt review invoked by IRB is where the research that the party wants to conduct is exempt from the regulations. Given the fact that IRB draws her regulatory authority through law and policies in place, these policies and laws also provide situations where the researcher is exempt from these requirements. It is noteworthy that despite the exemption requirements, the researcher has to seek the exempt review from
Unit 5 Assignment Template
Candeece Lucas
July 21, 2014
HN410 - Human Services & Delivery
Kaplan University
IRB is an abbreviation for the institutional review board. Informed by the need to review human biomedical and behavioral research to the mutual benefit of the researcher and the sample population oversight, responsibilities have to be designated to an impartial body. In light of this, the IRB is also commonly referred to as the independent ethics committee or the ethical review board. Indeed, biomedical and behavioral research on humans is not a light discipline as some of the research tenets border on life and death. It is thus important to evaluate whether the research being conducted has manageable or no risk to the human being. The IRB thus comes in by performing a risk benefit analysis aimed at identifying whether or not the research in question should be conducted or not (Byerly, 2009). It is therefore noteworthy that IRB is informed by facts in terms of risk to determine whether the research in question is worthwhile and can be conducted.
As earlier identified, the priority for IRB is to protect the human subjects involved or ensure that those involved in the research do not face physical or psychological harm. In the United States for example, the IRB has divided the mandate to the food and drug administration (FDA) and the department of health and human services. The IRB has three identifiable methods of review namely: exempt review, expedited review and full review. The exempt review invoked by IRB is where the research that the party wants to conduct is exempt from the regulations. Given the fact that IRB draws her regulatory authority through law and policies in place, these policies and laws also provide situations where the researcher is exempt from these requirements. It is noteworthy that despite the exemption requirements, the researcher has to seek the exempt review from
References: Byerly, W. (2009). Working with the institutional review board. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy: AJHP: Official Journal Of The American Society Of Health System Pharmacists, 66(2), 176-184. Retrieved from http://library.kaplan.edu/content.php?pid=150035 Grady, C. (2010). Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA, 304(10), 1122-1123. Retrieved from http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=186530 Millum, J., & Menikoff, J. (2010). Streamlining Ethical Review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 153(10), 655-W.219. Retrieved fromhttp://library.kaplan.edu/content.php?pid=150035