Citation

De Vries R, DeBruin DA, Goodgame A. Ethics Behav. 2004; 14(4): 351-368.

Affiliation

Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, Suite N504 Boynton, 410 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. devries@umn.edu

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1207/s15327019eb1404_6

PMID

16625729

Abstract

It is not unusual for researchers to complain about institutional review board (IRB) oversight, but social scientists have a unique set of objections to the work of ethics committees. In an effort to better understand the problems associated with ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBES) research, this article examinees 3 different aspects of research ethics committees: (a) the composition of review boards; (b) the guidelines used by these boards to review SBES--and in particular, behavioral health--research; and (c) the actual deliberations of IRBs. The article concludes with recommendations for changes in the review process and with suggestions for filling the gaps in knowledge about the way IRBs work.

Language: en