More Than Cheating: Deception, IRB Shopping, and the Normative Legitimacy of IRBs

Spellecy, Ryan; May, Thomas

doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2012.00726.x

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Presently, the few studies dealing with outcome assessment focused mostly on statistical analysis of approval, while investigating compliance and the ‘correctness of decisions’ is unduly ‘neglected’. In the light of the common deception, “ranging from omitting information to outright lying in research”, and information on clinical researchers perspectives on value of ethics review [ 42 ], further studies are necessary to understand to what extent ethical decisions are followed [ 43 ]. The aim is not to point out non-compliance of animal researchers but to contribute to increase legitimacy of AECs by facilitating communication between researchers and AECs [ 44 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process

Varga

2013

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryIn many countries, the approval of animal research projects depends on the decisions of the ethics committees which review the projects. Since the efficiency of the protection of experimental animals greatly depends on the performance of the ethics committees, its regular assessment is crucial. This paper reviews the results of studies assessing the performance of the ethics committees, and emphasizes the importance of outcome assessment in the evaluation of the performance of ethics committees.AbstractIn many countries the approval of animal research projects depends on the decisions of Animal Ethics Committees (AEC’s), which review the projects. An animal ethics review is performed as part of the authorization process and therefore performed routinely, but comprehensive information about how well the review system works is not available. This paper reviews studies that assess the performance of animal ethics committees by using Donabedian’s structure-process-outcome model. The paper points out that it is well recognised that AECs differ in structure, in their decision-making methods, in the time they take to review proposals and that they also make inconsistent decisions. On the other hand, we know little about the quality of outcomes, and to what extent decisions have been incorporated into daily scientific activity, and we know almost nothing about how well AECs work from the animal protection point of view. In order to emphasise this viewpoint in the assessment of AECs, the paper provides an example of measures for outcome assessment. The animal suffering is considered as a potential measure for outcome assessment of the ethics review. Although this approach has limitations, outcome assessment would significantly increase our understanding of the performance of AECs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process

Varga

2013

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is particularly true in criminology and criminal justice which, oftentimes, involves research designs and issues that IRB committee members do not have experience with and that require a prisoner representative—an individual who is currently or formerly a prisoner or an individual who has a close working knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of prison conditions from the perspective of the prisoner (e.g., prison chaplain, prison social worker, prison health care worker) (Tierney & Corwin, 2007). As a result, researchers may engage in lying or deception to the IRB to gain approval or even resort to “IRB shopping” whereby the researcher, if working collaboratively with other academics at other institutions, may choose which IRB to submit the protocol to be granted the best chance of research approval (Spellecy & May, 2012). At a minimum, the creativity of social science researchers is stifled as they sort out how to conduct their research with the mindset of how to gain IRB approval rather than approaching their research with the best design to answering their pressing questions (Bledsoe et al, 2007).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Process, Power, and Impact of the Institutional Review Board in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research

Gunnison

Helfgott

2021

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While research on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) has been conducted on issues ranging from quality, process, and effectiveness, gaps remain. Social science researchers have raised issues regarding decisions by IRBs applied to the social sciences based on biomedical research. To date, little is known about the experience of social scientists in criminology and criminal justice with IRBs and this research seeks to fill this gap. An online survey, including open- and closed-ended questions drawn from the validated IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool, was administered to members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American Society of Criminology about their experiences with IRBs. Results revealed that researchers report experiencing challenges with their IRBs including timeline delays of their research, bias against their research, and decisions that protect legal liability rather than human subjects ethics. Recommendations for improving IRB reviews of protocols and challenges unique to criminology and criminal justice are discussed.

show abstract

“…Participants sometimes sign the consent document without understanding what participation entails (Rowbotham et al 2013). At the same time, investigators point out that IRB reviews sometimes ask that even more information be provided on a consent form, require changes for stylistic purposes, and require changes that do not concern safety or benefits but emphasize study design (Spellecy and May 2012). The exclusive focus on the informed consent document by IRBs undermines the premise that informed consent is a process rather than a checkbox (Emanuel et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives of IRB chairs on the informed consent process

Kane

Gallo

2016

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Questions have been raised by researchers and ethics committees about whether human research subjects comprehend study participation when signing a research consent form. Methods: To determine existing beliefs about the informed consent review process, impediments to shorter consent, and augmented/alternative consent methods, a survey of Institutional Review Board (IRB) chairpersons was conducted. Results: IRB Chairs expressed concern with (but do not often assess) the length, complexity, and reading level of the consent form or participant comprehension. IRB chairs reported varied (but generally low) familiarity, acceptance, and use of possible solutions and alternatives. Conclusions: Best practice standards should be developed for (1) assessing consent form reading level; (2) measuring and monitoring participant comprehension; (3) alternative consent methods and enhancements; and (4) electronic signatures.

show abstract

More Than Cheating: Deception, IRB Shopping, and the Normative Legitimacy of IRBs

Cited by 9 publications

References 20 publications

Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process

Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process

Process, Power, and Impact of the Institutional Review Board in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research

Perspectives of IRB chairs on the informed consent process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About