Discussion 3
This week, you will discuss the proper role of the IRB at a university. Regardless of whether you are carrying out an empirical capstone study or not, it is critical to understand the role of an IRB and to think critically about its purview.
Do IRB’s have the potential to limit the academic freedom of researchers? Do IRB’s have the potential to engage in needless censorship of potentially important research? Please read both articles – the “IRB as a mirror” goes over issues with IRBs, and the case study is essential – what would you do if you were an IRB reviewer for the study presented? Do you agree with the decisions? Do you agree with the student researchers? Why or why not? Read the attached articles on this subject.
The role of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) at a university is indeed critical in ensuring the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects. IRBs are responsible for reviewing research proposals to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of participants. While IRBs play a crucial role in research ethics, there are legitimate concerns about whether they can limit academic freedom and potentially engage in needless censorship of important research.
- Academic Freedom: IRBs are designed to protect the welfare of research participants, but their review process can sometimes be seen as infringing on the academic freedom of researchers. Researchers may feel that their freedom to explore certain topics or use specific research methods is constrained by the need to gain IRB approval. However, it’s important to strike a balance between academic freedom and ethical research, as academic freedom should not justify unethical practices or harm to participants.
- Censorship of Research: There are instances where IRBs might reject or request changes to research proposals that researchers believe are essential to their work. This can potentially lead to the censorship of research that may have significant societal or academic value. The challenge for IRBs is to distinguish between legitimate concerns about ethics and potential overreach.
The “IRB as a mirror” article likely discusses some of the challenges and issues associated with IRBs’ functioning, which may include inconsistencies in decision-making, delays in approvals, and sometimes overly cautious approaches.
Regarding the case study, it’s important to review the specifics of the case to make a judgment about the decisions made by the IRB and the student researchers. IRB reviewers typically evaluate whether the research design adequately protects the rights and well-being of participants. Reviewers may request changes or clarifications in cases where they believe there are ethical concerns.
As an IRB reviewer, it’s crucial to carefully consider the ethical implications of the study presented and assess whether the proposed research design adequately addresses potential risks to participants. Decisions should be made with a focus on ethical principles and the protection of human subjects. Whether you agree with the decisions or not depends on the specific details of the case.
Student researchers may have valid concerns about the impact of IRB decisions on their ability to conduct research, but it’s essential for them to work collaboratively with the IRB to address these concerns while upholding ethical standards.
In summary, IRBs are necessary to ensure the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects. While they can potentially limit academic freedom and engage in censorship, these limitations must be balanced against the protection of research participants’ rights and well-being. Collaborative dialogue between researchers and IRBs is key to finding this balance and ensuring ethical research practices.