Conducting Science in Disasters: Recommendations from the NIEHS Working Group for Special IRB Considerations in the Review of Disaster Related Research

Abstract

Summary:Research involving human subjects after public health emergencies and disasters may pose ethical challenges. These challenges may include concerns about the vulnerability of prospective disaster research participants, increased research burden among disaster survivors approached by multiple research teams, and potentially reduced standards in the ethical review of research by institutional review boards (IRBs) due to the rush to enter the disaster field. The NIEHS Best Practices Working Group for Special IRB Considerations in the Review of Disaster Related Research was formed to identify and address ethical and regulatory challenges associated with the review of disaster research. The working group consists of a diverse collection of disaster research stakeholders across a broad spectrum of disciplines. The working group convened in July 2016 to identify recommendations that are instrumental in preparing IRBs to review protocols related to public health emergencies and disasters. The meeting included formative didactic presentations and facilitated breakout discussions using disaster-related case studies. Major thematic elements from these discussions were collected and documented into 15 working group recommendations, summarized in this article, that address topics such as IRB disaster preparedness activities, informed consent, vulnerable populations, confidentiality, participant burden, disaster research response integration and training, IRB roles/responsibilities, community engagement, and dissemination of disaster research results. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP2378

What Methods Do Social Scientists Use to Study Disasters? An Analysis of the Social Science Extreme Events Research Network

“…There should be more funding available for methodological training for social scientists, as well as continued and enhanced support for the research that follows. Any such training should, of course, be coupled with an equally in-depth focus on the ethical conduct of hazards and disaster research (Browne & Peek, 2014; Gaillard & Peek, 2019; Henderson & Liboiron, 2019; Kelman, 2005; Packenham et al, 2017; Van Brown, 2020). These types of workforce investments will pay substantial dividends through further broadening the horizons of scientific inquiry and discovery; more social science leadership could also help mitigate the unintended consequences of issuing technical fixes for what are fundamentally human problems.…”

Getting Interdisciplinary Teams into the Field: Institutional Review Board Preapproval and Multi‐Institution Authorization Agreements for Rapid Response Disaster Research

“…This was an important initial step because according to IRB requirements, funding should not be allocated, and research should not begin until projects involving human subjects have an established protocol in place. It is therefore essential to develop and build such relationships with compliance officers early in the research process (Packenham et al., 2017 ), while also working together to identify and understand the distinct ethical dynamics of research in disaster settings (Browne & Peek, 2014 ; Falb, Laird, Ratnayake, Rodrigues, & Annan, 2019 ).…”

Institutional Review Board Preparedness for Disaster Research: a Practical Approach

“…This national working group met in 2016 to discuss ethical concerns raised by disasters and ways to improve the IRB review of disaster research. Major thematic elements from these discussions were collected and published as recommendations of the working group [ 8 ]. While these recommendations provided general guidance to IRBs and investigators, there remained a need for a more specific guidance on implementing best practices to address the unique circumstances of reviewing disaster research protocols.…”