© Oxford University Press 2007.
NEWS |
LOCAL OR CENTRAL?
Debate Over Institutional Review Boards Continues as Alternative Options Emerge
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
On Jan. 1, the University of Minnesota launched a major overhaul of its institutional review boards (IRBs) with the goal of increasing efficiency, quality, and—most importantly for many IRB critics—the speed with which it reviews new clinical trial protocols.
The reforms represent one approach to fixing the problems that have been plaguing IRBs everywhere for more than a decade. Charged with protecting human research subjects, IRBs have been facing increasing workloads, difficulty attracting qualified members, and lack of expertise in specific areas of medicine.
The University of Minnesota's local reforms buck the growing trend toward use of external or "central" IRBs to solve these problems. Outsourcing review to central IRBs, including the independent, for-profit boards that charge a fee, is increasingly common and has the explicit support of federal agencies including the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute.
Nevertheless,
Range of Advantages
Issue of Responsibility
Spirited Experimentation
Local Context