Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:26:04.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More Than Cheating: Deception, IRB Shopping, and the Normative Legitimacy of IRBs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Ryan Spellecy  and
Thomas May
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Deception, cheating, and loopholes within the IRB approval process have received significant attention in the past several years. Surveys of clinical researchers indicate common deception ranging from omitting information to outright lying, and controversy surrounding the FDA's decision not to ban “IRB shopping” (the practice of submitting protocols to multiple IRBs until one is found that will approve the protocol) has raised legitimate concerns about the integrity of the IRB process. One author has described a multicenter trial as being withdrawn from consideration at one institution when rejection was imminent, in order to avoid informing other IRBs reviewing the protocol of the study's rejection (a requirement under the federal regulations for emergency research with an exception from informed consent). This practice and IRB shopping seem at odds with the spirit, if not the “letter,” of the regulations. While at first blush these practices seem to cast aspersions on the integrity of clinical researchers, the moral issues raised go deeper than the ethics of cheating.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , Winter 2012 , pp. 990 - 996
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Giles, J., “Researchers Break Rules in Frustration at Review Boards,” Nature 438, no. 10 (2005): 136–137; Martinson, B. C. Anderson, M. S., and DeVries, R., “Scientists Behaving Badly,” Nature 435, no. 9 (2005): 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, F., “Federal Agency Decides Not to Regulate ‘IRB Shopping,’ Saying that Research Dodge Appears Uncommon,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 18, 2006; Elliot, C. and Lemmens, T., “Ethics for Sale,” Slate, December 13, 2005.Google Scholar
Orr, R. D., “Rules is Rules,” American Journal of Bioethics 6, no. 3 (2006): 40–41; Food and Drug Administration, 21 CFR § 50, 56, 312, 314, 601, 812, and 814; Kipnis, K. King, N. M. P. and Nelson, R. M., “Trials and Errors: Barriers to Oversight of Research Conducted under the Emergency Research Consent Waiver,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 28, no. 2 (2006): 16–19.Google Scholar
See Giles, , supra note 1; Tomkowiak, J. M. and Gunderson, A. J., “To IRB or Not to IRB?” Academic Medicine 79, no. 7 (2004): 628–632; Helfand, B. T. et al., “Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Surgical Trial,” Journal of Urology 181, no. 6 (2009): 2674–2679; Mansbach, J. et al., “Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard, Observational, Pediatric Research Protocol,” Academic Emergency Medicine 14, no. 4 (2007): 377–380.Google Scholar
Abbot, L. and Grady, C., “A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature Evaluating IRBs: What we Know and What We Still Need to Learn,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 6, no. 1 (2011): 3–20, at 3.Google Scholar
May, T. Craig, J. M., and Spellecy, R., “IRBs, Hospital Ethics Committees, and the Need for ‘Translational Informed Consent,’” Academic Medicine 82, no. 7 (2007): 670–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, L. A. et al., “Impact of Institutional Review Board Practice Variation on Observational Health Services Research,” HSR: Health Services Research 41, no. 1 (2006): 214–230.Google Scholar
Bails, J. and Fabregas, L., “Lax Oversight by Pitt Enabled Schatten Fiasco,” Pittsburgh Tribune Review, April 23, 2006.Google Scholar
See Green, L. et al., supra note 7; Goldman, J. and Katz, M. D., “Inconsistency and Institutional Review Boards,” JAMA 298, no. 2 (1982): 197–202; Silverman, H. Hull, S. C., and Sugarman, J., “Variability among Institutional Review Boards' Decisions within the Context of a Multicenter Trial,” Critical Care Medicine 29, no. 2 (2001): 235–241; McWilliams, R. et al., “Problematic Variation in Local Institutional Review of a Multicenter Genetic Epidemiologic Study,” JAMA 290, no. 3 (2003): 360–366; Stair, T. O. et al., “Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Clinical Trial,” Academic Emergency Medicine 8, no. 6 (2001): 636–641; Dziak, K. et al., “Variations among Institutional Review Boards in a Multisite Health Services Research Study,” HSR: Health Services Research 40, no. 1 (2005): 279–290.Google Scholar
Fost, N. and Levine, R. J., “The Dysregulation of Human Subjects Research,” JAMA 298, no. 18 (2007): 2196–2198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, J. Caplan, A. L., and Wolpe, P. R., “Updating Protections for Human Subjects Involved in Research. Project on Informed Consent, Human Research Ethics Group,” JAMA 280, no. 22 (1998): 1951–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maschke, K. J., “Human Research Protections: Time for Regulatory Reform,” Hastings Center Report 38, no. 2 (2008): 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsen, H., Pure Theory of Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967); Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Raz, J., The Concept of a Legal System (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970).Google Scholar
Id. (Hart).Google Scholar
See Kelson, , supra note 13.Google Scholar
Child, J., “Specific Commands, General Rules, and Degrees of Autonomy,” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence VIII, no. 2 (1995): 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, L. A., “Local IRBs, Multicenter Trials, and the Ethics of Internal Amendments,” IRB: Ethics and Human Research 27, no. 4 (2005): 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Hart, , supra note 13.Google Scholar
Shah, S. et al., “How Do Institutional Review Boards Apply the Federal Risk and Benefit Standards for Pediatric Research?” JAMA 291, no. 4 (2004): 476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Hart, , supra note 13, at 121–132.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. Terry, K. Wallenstein, M., and Wynes, D., “The IRB Process in Difficult Cases: The Art of the Possible,” panel at the Public Medicine and Responsibility in Research Annual Human Research Protections Program Conference, Boston, MA, December 6, 2005.Google Scholar
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Institutional Review Boards, “Frequently Asked Questions-Information Sheet,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126420.htm> (last visited December 7, 2012).+(last+visited+December+7,+2012).>Google Scholar
Office for Human Research Protections, IRB Guidebook, at Chapter 1, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_chapter1.htm> (last visited December 7, 2012).+(last+visited+December+7,+2012).>Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. 56.102.g (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See May, et al., supra note 6.Google Scholar
United States General Accounting Office. Scientific Research: Continued Vigilance Critical to Protecting Human Subjects (Washington, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office, 1996).Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., Harm to Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
See Child, , supra note 16; May, T., Autonomy, Authority, and Moral Responsibility (Dordrecht, NE: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998).Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine Committee on Assessing the System for Protecting Human Research Participants, Federman, D. D. Hanna, K. E., and Rodriguez, L. L., eds., Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants, (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Cho, M. K. et al., “Strangers at the Benchside: Research Ethics Consultation,” American Journal of Bioethics 8, no. 3 (2008): 4–13; de Melo-Martín, I. Palmer, L. I., and Fins, J. J., “Viewpoint: Developing a Research Ethics Consultation Service to Foster Responsive and Responsible Clinical Research,” Academic Medicine 82, no. 9 (2007): 900–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. (Cho).Google Scholar
Sugarman, J., “The Role of Institutional Support in Protecting Human Research Subjects,” Academic Medicine 75, no. 7 (2000): 687–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, G., “Keeping Research Subjects Out of Harm's Way,” JAMA 282, no. 20 (1999): 1963–1965, at 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L. Warner, T. D., and Hammond, Green K. A., “Coexisting Commitments to Ethics and Human Research: A Preliminary Study of the Perspectives of 83 Medical Students,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 6 (2005): W1-W7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Martinson, et al., supra note 1.Google Scholar
Anonymous, “Do Researchers Learn to Practice Misbehavior?” Hastings Center Report 36, no. 2 (2006): 4–7.Google Scholar