Search

The authors offer a response for those who offer comments with regard to the protection-inclusion dilemma in research oversight. Topics include the quality and form of the protection-inclusion dilemma in areas of research in which they are immersed, informative example of the need to respond to obligations to protect and include on a case-by-case basis, and ethical considerations of institutional review boards (IRBs).

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated to include both nonscientific and unaffiliated representatives in their membership. Despite this, there is no guidance or policy on the selection of unaffiliated or non-scientist members and reports indicate a lack of clarity regarding members' roles. In the present study we sought to explore processes of recruitment, training, and the perceived roles for unaffiliated and non-scientist members of IRBs. We distributed a self-administered REDCap survey of members of the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs familiar with IRB member recruitment. The survey included closed and open-ended questions regarding: the operation of the HRPP/IRB(s), how unaffiliated and non-scientist members are recruited, whether they had faced challenges recruiting for these roles, and training and mentorship offered. The survey also collected information regarding the perceived value and roles of unaffiliated and non-scientist members. 76 responses were included in the analysis (38% completion rate). The most common approach for recruitment was referral from current IRB members, with almost half of respondents indicating challenges recruiting unaffiliated members. Over 75% indicated no additional training was provided to unaffiliated or non-scientist members compared to affiliated or scientist members. Most common supports provided were travel/parking expenses and honoraria. Commonly perceived roles were to provide an independent voice from the participant perspective, notably regarding consent processes and materials. Respondents indicated challenges in defining unaffiliated and non-scientist members and limited practices toward recruitment and support. Future work should more closely examine the challenges in defining these roles and applying the definitions in practice, as well as strategies that may improve recruitment and retention of unaffiliated and non-scientist members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since their inception, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been charged with protecting the vulnerable in research. More recently, attention has turned to whether IRBs also have a role to play in ensuring representative study samples and promoting the inclusion of historically under-represented groups. These two aims—protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented—can pull in different directions, given the potential for overlap between the vulnerable and the under-represented. We conducted a pilot, online national survey of IRB Chairs to gauge attitudes and practices with regard to protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented in research. We found that IRBs extend the concept of vulnerability to different groups across various contexts, are confident that they effectively protect vulnerable individuals in research, and believe that IRBs have a role to play in ensuring representative samples and the inclusion of under-represented groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many are calling for concrete mechanisms of oversight for health research involving artificial intelligence (AI). In response, institutional review boards (IRBs) are being turned to as a familiar model of governance. Here, we examine the IRB model as a form of ethics oversight for health research that uses AI. We consider the model's origins, analyze the challenges IRBs are facing in the contexts of both industry and academia, and offer concrete recommendations for how these committees might be adapted in order to provide an effective mechanism of oversight for health‐related AI research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to increasing concerns regarding inconsistency in the decision‐making of institutional review boards (IRBs), we introduce the decision‐maker's dilemma, which arises when complex, normative decisions must be made regularly. Those faced with such decisions can either develop a process of algorithmic decision‐making, in which consistency is ensured but many morally relevant factors are excluded from the process, or embrace discretionary decision‐making, which makes space for morally relevant factors to shape decisions but leads to decisions that are inconsistent. Based on an exploration of similarities between systems of criminal sentencing and of research ethics review, we argue for a discretionary system of decision‐making, even though it leads to more inconsistency than does an algorithmic system. We conclude with a discussion of some safeguards that could improve consistency while still making space for discretion to enter IRBs' decision‐making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Around the world, a growing number of communities are voicing their demands for authority in the governance of research involving them. Many such communities have experienced histories of exploitative, stigmatizing, intrusive research that failed to benefit them. To better understand what strategies communities are developing in order to have a say in research oversight, we conducted a scoping review of the international peer-reviewed and grey literature. Three primary strategies were identified: (1) guidelines; (2) community review boards; and (3) community advisory boards. Guidelines include documents developed by, with, or for communities to outline ethical behavior or conduct in research with or within the community. Community review boards offer ethical review of research protocols, much like traditional research ethics boards, but are community led and focus on community interests. Community advisory boards consist of representatives from a given community and are developed to advise institutions or research teams on community-level ethical matters pertaining to research projects. Initiatives led by Indigenous communities far outnumbered others in the sample, reflecting the legacy of continuous Indigenous resistance to research as a tool of colonialism. In several cases, communities in marginalized neighbourhoods, where harmful and exploitative research practices have taken place, emphasized the significance of community-led governance grounded in shared geographical and social contexts. We discuss some of the beneficial and challenging features of each type of strategy and offer recommendations for stakeholders who wish to support community-led efforts in research ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]