Author:
Lidz Charles W.,Garverich Suzanne
Abstract
The federal Common Rule, which governs the conduct of research with human subjects, specifies the criteria and procedures by which Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) should review such research. Although there is wide agreement that IRBs, or Research Ethics Committees as they are called in most of the world, are essential to assuring that human subjects research meets common standards of ethics, IRBs have always come under considerable criticism. Some have critiqued IRBs for using important resources inefficiently, including the large amount of time researchers put into submitting applications, modifications, and reports and delaying the start of data collection within the limited time that grants and contracts provide. Others have critiqued the inconsistency of review of multi-site projects.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Health Policy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference15 articles.
1. “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators - Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”;Federal Register,2011
2. Crisis Checklists for the Operating Room: Development and Pilot Testing
3. 8. Id.
4. “IRBs: How Closely Do They Follow the Common Rule?”;Lidz;Academic Medicine Academic Medicine,2012
5. “The Silent Majority: Who Speaks at IRB Meetings,”;Candilis;IRB: Ethics and Human Research,2012
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献