Institutional review boards: what's old? What's new? What needs to change?

Research ethics review during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international study

Research ethics review committees (ERCs) worldwide faced daunting challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a need to balance rapid turnaround with rigorous evaluation of high-risk research protocols in the context of considerable uncertainty. This study explored the experiences and performance of ERCs during the pandemic. We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional, global online survey of chairs (or their delegates) of ERCs who were involved in the review of COVID-19-related research protocols after March 2020. The survey ran from October 2022 to February 2023 and consisted of 50 items, with opportunities for descriptive responses to open-ended questions. Two hundred and three participants [130 from high-income countries (HICs) and 73 from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] completed our survey. Respondents came from diverse entities and organizations from 48 countries (19 HICs and 29 LMICs) in all World Health Organization regions. Responses show little of the increased global funding for COVID-19 research was allotted to the operation of ERCs. Few ERCs had pre-existing internal policies to address operation during public health emergencies, but almost half used existing guidelines. Most ERCs modified existing procedures or designed and implemented new ones but had not evaluated the success of these changes. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed permanently implementing several of them. Few ERCs added new members but non-member experts were consulted; quorum was generally achieved. Collaboration among ERCs was infrequent, but reviews conducted by external ERCs were recognized and validated. Review volume increased during the pandemic, with COVID-19-related studies being prioritized. Most protocol reviews were reported as taking less than three weeks. One-third of respondents reported external pressure on their ERCs from different stakeholders to approve or reject specific COVID-19-related protocols. ERC members faced significant challenges to keep their committees functioning during the pandemic. Our findings can inform ERC approaches towards future public health emergencies. To our knowledge, this is the first international, COVID-19-related study of its kind.

Research Ethics Committees in Laboratory Medicine

Biomedical research that involves human subjects requires compliance with ethical principles and guidelines. The ethical and scientific standards of research have been thoroughly discussed by international ethical guidelines and declarations. Compliance with these ensures the autonomy, dignity and well-being of research subjects; as well as the integrity and credibility of research results. Research ethics committees (RECs) are mandated to ensure that research proposals are scientifically sound and ethical. In this review, we define RECs in laboratory medicine and describe their role based on the examination of the requirements of ethical research; discuss particular ethical issues that arise in laboratory medicine research using biological samples, what challenges they face and how they can ensure the quality of their review. RECs need to be put into a broader framework that ensures institutional governance with continuous evaluation and auditing that ensure the quality of ethical review.

Public interest in health data research: laying out the conceptual groundwork

The future of health research will be characterised by three continuing trends: rising demand for health data; increasing impracticability of obtaining specific consent for secondary research; and decreasing capacity to effectively anonymise data. In this context, governments, clinicians and the research community must demonstrate that they can be responsible stewards of health data. IRBs and RECs sit at heart of this process because in many jurisdictions they have the capacity to grant consent waivers when research is judged to be of particular value. However, several different terms are used to refer to this value (including public interest, public benefit, public good and social value), indicating a lack of conceptual clarity regarding the appropriate test for access to health data for research without consent. In this paper we do three things. First we describe the current confusion and instability in terminology relating to public interest in the context of consent waivers. Second we argue for harmonisation of terminology on the grounds of clarity, transparency and consistency. Third we argue that the term 'public interest' best reflects the normative work required to justify consent waivers because it is the broadest of the competing terms. 'Public interest' contains within its scope positive and negative implications of a study, as well as welfare, justice and rights considerations. In making this argument, we explain the normative basis for consent waivers, and provide a starting place for further discussion about the precise conditions in which a given study can be said to advance the public interest. Ipsos MORI study found that: … the public would be broadly happy with administrative data linking for research projects provided (1) Those projects have social value, broadly defined. (2) Data are de-identified. (3) Data are kept secure. (4) Businesses are not able to access the data for profit.

The New 2019 Institutional Review Board Common Rule Update: Implications for Plastic Surgery Research

Clinical research remains at the forefront of academic practice and evidence-based medicine. Unfortunately, history has shown that human subjects are vulnerable to experimentation without regard for their own dignity and informed decision-making. Subsequently, it is vital for research institutes to uphold safeguards and ethical conscientiousness toward human subjects. The establishment of federal regulations and the development of institutional review boards have set guidance on these processes. On January 21, 2019, final revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the "Common Rule") went into effect. The purpose of this article is to review changes to the Common Rule and discuss their impact on plastic surgery research.

IRB and Research Regulatory Delays Within the Military Health System: Do They Really Matter? And If So, Why and for Whom?

Institutional review board (IRB) delays may hinder the successful completion of federally funded research in the U.S. military. When this happens, time-sensitive, mission-relevant questions go unanswered. Research participants face unnecessary burdens and risks if delays squeeze recruitment timelines, resulting in inadequate sample sizes for definitive analyses. More broadly, military members are exposed to untested or undertested interventions, implemented by well-intentioned leaders who bypass the research process altogether. To illustrate, we offer two case examples. We posit that IRB delays often appear in the service of managing institutional risk, rather than protecting research participants. Regulators may see more risk associated with moving quickly than risk related to delay, choosing to err on the side of bureaucracy. The authors of this article, all of whom are military-funded researchers, government stakeholders, and/or human subject protection experts, offer feasible recommendations to improve the IRB system and, ultimately, research within military, veteran, and civilian populations.