Institutional Review Board

1. Institutional Review Board

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a committee that has been formally designated by an institution to review and approve research involving human subjects. IRBs are crucial for protecting the rights and welfare of research participants, ensuring ethical conduct, and maintaining the integrity of research. This article provides a comprehensive overview of IRBs, covering their history, function, composition, review processes, and the types of research they oversee. It's geared towards individuals new to the concept, particularly those embarking on research projects or seeking to understand the regulations governing human subject research.

History and Development

The establishment of IRBs is directly linked to a series of historical events that highlighted the ethical failings of research involving human subjects. Prior to the mid-20th century, ethical oversight of research was largely absent, leading to instances of significant harm and exploitation. Some key events that spurred the development of modern IRB systems include:

• The Nuremberg Trials (1946-1947): The trials revealed the horrific experiments conducted by Nazi doctors during World War II, demonstrating a blatant disregard for human rights and informed consent. The Nuremberg Code emerged from these trials, establishing a set of ethical principles for human experimentation.
• The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972): This infamous study involved withholding treatment from African American men with syphilis to observe the natural progression of the disease. Participants were not informed of their diagnosis or the availability of penicillin, even after it became a standard treatment. This study exemplified systemic racism and a profound lack of respect for research participants.
• The Willowbrook State School Hepatitis Study (1956-1970): Researchers intentionally infected intellectually disabled children with hepatitis to study the disease. Consent was often obtained from parents under questionable circumstances.
• The Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Study (1963): Live cancer cells were injected into elderly, chronically ill patients without their informed consent.

These events prompted public outcry and led to increased scrutiny of research practices. In response, the U.S. National Research Act was passed in 1974, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. This Commission developed the Belmont Report (1979), which outlined three core ethical principles:

• Respect for Persons: Individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and those with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
• Beneficence: Research should maximize benefits and minimize potential harms to participants.
• Justice: The benefits and burdens of research should be distributed fairly.

These principles, along with federal regulations codified in 45 CFR Part 46 (the Common Rule), form the foundation of IRB review processes today. The Common Rule applies to research funded or conducted by federal departments and agencies.

Functions of an IRB

The primary function of an IRB is to prospectively review and approve research involving human subjects to ensure it meets ethical standards and complies with applicable regulations. This involves a rigorous assessment of the study's risks and benefits, the adequacy of informed consent procedures, and the protections in place for vulnerable populations. Specifically, IRBs are responsible for:

• Reviewing Research Protocols: IRBs evaluate the research plan, including the study design, methodology, recruitment procedures, data collection methods, and data analysis plans.
• Assessing Risks and Benefits: A central part of the review is determining the potential risks to participants (physical, psychological, social, legal, economic) and weighing them against the potential benefits of the research. The IRB must determine if the risks are justified by the potential benefits. This process is often aided by understanding concepts like Risk Management and Volatility Analysis in assessing potential downsides.
• Evaluating Informed Consent: IRBs scrutinize the informed consent process to ensure that participants are fully informed about the study's purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time. The consent form must be written in clear, understandable language. Understanding participant behavior can be aided by Behavioral Finance principles.
• Protecting Vulnerable Populations: IRBs pay special attention to research involving vulnerable populations, such as children, pregnant women, prisoners, individuals with cognitive impairments, and economically disadvantaged individuals. Additional safeguards are required to protect these groups from coercion or undue influence.
• Monitoring Ongoing Research: IRBs don't just approve research initially; they also monitor ongoing studies to ensure continued compliance with ethical standards. This may involve reviewing progress reports, adverse event reports, and amendments to the research protocol.
• Ensuring Confidentiality and Privacy: IRBs review data management plans to ensure that participant data is protected and confidentiality is maintained. This includes considerations for data security, storage, and access. Data Security is paramount.
• Reporting to Regulatory Bodies: IRBs are responsible for reporting serious adverse events or instances of non-compliance to regulatory bodies, such as the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).

IRB Composition

IRBs are typically composed of a diverse group of individuals with varying backgrounds and expertise. Federal regulations require that an IRB have at least five members, and that it include individuals with the following qualifications:

• Scientific Expertise: Members who are knowledgeable about the scientific disciplines involved in the research.
• Non-Scientific Expertise: Members who are not affiliated with the institution and represent the perspectives of the community.
• One Member Independent of the Institution: This member should not be employed by or have a financial interest in the institution.
• Consideration of Diversity: IRBs should strive to include members with diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences to ensure a comprehensive review. This can include gender, race, ethnicity, age, and cultural affiliations.

Having a diverse IRB is crucial for identifying potential ethical concerns that might be overlooked by a homogeneous group. The ideal composition facilitates a balanced assessment of the risks and benefits of research. Understanding group dynamics and decision-making processes can be likened to Trend Following strategies – identifying and leveraging diverse perspectives.

IRB Review Processes

IRBs employ different levels of review, depending on the level of risk associated with the research:

• Exempt Review: Research that falls into specific categories (e.g., educational settings, surveys with minimal risk) may be eligible for exempt review. Exempt research does not require full IRB review, but the IRB must still determine that it meets the criteria for exemption. This is akin to a Support and Resistance Level – a defined boundary for minimal intervention.
• Expedited Review: Research that involves minimal risk and falls into specific categories (e.g., collection of blood samples, non-invasive surveys) may be eligible for expedited review. Expedited review is conducted by one or more experienced IRB members and does not require a full committee meeting. Think of this as a Moving Average – smoothing out the review process for low-risk scenarios.
• Full Board Review: Research that involves more than minimal risk, or that doesn't qualify for exempt or expedited review, requires full board review. This involves a meeting of the entire IRB committee, where the research protocol is discussed and debated. This is the most comprehensive level of review and is analogous to a detailed Fundamental Analysis of a research proposal.

The typical review process involves the following steps:

1. Submission of Research Protocol: Researchers submit a detailed research protocol to the IRB, including the study design, methodology, informed consent form, and any other relevant materials. 2. Initial Review: IRB staff conduct an initial review of the protocol to ensure it is complete and meets basic requirements. 3. Review by IRB Members: The protocol is then reviewed by IRB members, who assess the risks and benefits, the adequacy of informed consent, and the protections for participants. 4. IRB Meeting (if applicable): For full board review, the protocol is discussed at an IRB meeting. IRB members may request clarifications or modifications to the protocol. 5. Decision: The IRB makes one of the following decisions:

   * Approval:  The research is approved as submitted.
   * Approval with Modifications:  The research is approved subject to specific modifications.
   * Deferral:  The IRB requires the researcher to address specific concerns before the protocol can be reviewed further.
   * Disapproval:  The research is disapproved.

6. Ongoing Monitoring: The IRB monitors ongoing research to ensure continued compliance with ethical standards.

Types of Research Overseen by IRBs

IRBs review a wide range of research involving human subjects, including:

• Biomedical Research: Studies involving drugs, devices, or surgical procedures.
• Behavioral Research: Studies exploring human behavior, cognition, or motivation.
• Social and Psychological Research: Studies examining social phenomena, attitudes, or beliefs.
• Educational Research: Studies evaluating teaching methods or learning outcomes.
• Public Health Research: Studies investigating health behaviors, disease patterns, or interventions.
• Qualitative Research: Studies involving interviews, focus groups, or observations. Understanding Market Sentiment is crucial in interpreting qualitative data.
• Retrospective Chart Reviews: Analysis of existing medical records. This requires careful consideration of Historical Data Analysis.

Challenges Facing IRBs

Despite their importance, IRBs face a number of challenges:

• Increasing Complexity of Research: Research protocols are becoming increasingly complex, making it more difficult for IRBs to assess risks and benefits.
• Limited Resources: Many IRBs are understaffed and underfunded, which can lead to delays in review and potential compromises in quality.
• Balancing Protection and Innovation: IRBs must strike a balance between protecting research participants and fostering scientific innovation. Overly restrictive regulations can stifle research progress. This is similar to the Sharpe Ratio – balancing risk and reward.
• Maintaining Consistency: Ensuring consistency in IRB review across different institutions can be challenging.
• Emerging Technologies: New technologies, such as artificial intelligence and big data, raise new ethical concerns that IRBs must address. Analyzing emerging trends requires Elliott Wave Theory knowledge.
• Globalization of Research: Conducting research in multiple countries with different ethical standards can be complex. Understanding global markets is like applying Intermarket Analysis.

Resources and Further Information

• National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research: [1]
• Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP): [2]
• The Belmont Report: [3]
• 45 CFR Part 46 (The Common Rule): [4]
• PRIMR (Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research): [5]
• Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP): [6]
• Understanding Risk Assessment: [7] - A detailed look at risk assessment in research.
• Informed Consent Best Practices: [8] - Checklist for ensuring robust informed consent.
• Ethical Considerations in Big Data Research: [9] - Exploration of ethical challenges in big data.
• Vulnerable Populations in Research: [10] - Protecting vulnerable groups.
• The Role of IRBs in Global Health Research: [11] - Addressing ethical challenges in international research.
• Using Fibonacci Retracements to Predict Review Timelines: (Conceptual analogy suggesting applying pattern recognition to IRB processes)
• Applying Bollinger Bands to Monitor Adverse Event Reports: (Conceptual analogy suggesting using statistical control limits)
• Employing MACD to Identify Trends in Protocol Submissions: (Conceptual analogy suggesting tracking submission patterns)
• Utilizing RSI to Gauge IRB Workload: (Conceptual analogy suggesting assessing overbought/oversold conditions)
• Leveraging Ichimoku Cloud for Comprehensive Protocol Analysis: (Conceptual analogy suggesting a multi-faceted assessment)
• Analyzing Candlestick Patterns in IRB Decision-Making: (Conceptual analogy suggesting identifying predictable outcomes)
• Applying Elliott Wave to IRB Review Cycles: (Conceptual analogy suggesting recognizing recurring patterns)
• Using Stochastic Oscillator to Signal Potential Protocol Issues: (Conceptual analogy suggesting identifying overbought/oversold conditions)
• Applying Average True Range to Assess Risk Levels: (Conceptual analogy suggesting quantifying volatility)
• Utilizing Donchian Channels to Identify Protocol Boundaries: (Conceptual analogy suggesting defining acceptable parameters)
• Employing Parabolic SAR to Predict Protocol Completion: (Conceptual analogy suggesting forecasting timelines)
• Analyzing Volume Weighted Average Price for Protocol Importance: (Conceptual analogy suggesting assessing significance)
• Using Chaikin Money Flow to Gauge Protocol Funding: (Conceptual analogy suggesting tracking resource allocation)
• Applying Williams %R to Assess Protocol Progress: (Conceptual analogy suggesting monitoring momentum)
• Utilizing Commodity Channel Index to Identify Protocol Cycles: (Conceptual analogy suggesting recognizing recurring patterns)
• Employing On Balance Volume to Track Protocol Activity: (Conceptual analogy suggesting measuring accumulation/distribution)
• Analyzing Keltner Channels to Define Protocol Ranges: (Conceptual analogy suggesting establishing boundaries)
• Using Pivot Points to Identify Support and Resistance in Protocol Review: (Conceptual analogy suggesting recognizing key levels)
• Applying Heikin Ashi for Smoother Protocol Trend Analysis: (Conceptual analogy suggesting filtering out noise)
• Utilizing Renko Charts to Focus on Significant Protocol Changes: (Conceptual analogy suggesting highlighting key events)
• Employing Point and Figure Charts to Identify Protocol Breakthroughs: (Conceptual analogy suggesting recognizing significant shifts)

Human Subject Research Ethics in Research Informed Consent Research Methodology Data Privacy Data Security Belmont Report 45 CFR Part 46 Risk Assessment Vulnerable Populations

Start Trading Now

Sign up at IQ Option (Minimum deposit $10) Open an account at Pocket Option (Minimum deposit $5)

Join Our Community

Subscribe to our Telegram channel @strategybin to receive: ✓ Daily trading signals ✓ Exclusive strategy analysis ✓ Market trend alerts ✓ Educational materials for beginners