LAWS4300 Supervised Research Paper | Organization Place in IRBs

Answer:

Introduction

The institutional review board is a specialized group of people that supervise research which is designed to procure information from human subjects. IRB members come from the communities and other research disciplines in which the research is carried out. This essay discusses full board and expedited review, their applications in different organizations and their comparisons.

Types of IRBs

Full board review involves research that is of greater minimal risk. If research determined by full board appears to be minimal, then all the subsequent reviews may use procedures of the expedited review (Linder, Elek & Calderon, 2014). Additionally, the research can undergo full review if it involves pregnant women, prisoners, gathering information about illegal behavior, and teenagers. Applications that require full board review should be presented before the submission deadlines and then be reviewed by the full board on scheduled meeting dates. A secondary and primary IRB reviewer is assigned submissions by the IRB chair for presentations at the full board meeting.

The expedited review is a proposed research which presents no more than minimal risk (Musoba, Jacob & Robinson, 2014). It may qualify expedited status if it involves research on a group or individual characteristics such as language, social behavior, identity or program evaluation, quality assurance methodologies or human factors evaluation (Check, Weinfurt, Dombeck, Kramer & Flynn, 2013). The applications that qualify for expedited review are considered and reviewed on a continuous basis.

Applications

In universities, IRB’s primary goal is to protect the welfare and the rights of the human subjects who are involved in research activities that are being conducted under its authority (Chambers, Thorat, Wilkinson & Neumann, 2017). In medical institutions, IRB’s protect the welfare and rights of human research subjects and ensure that the risks embarked on by the subjects are reasonable to the potential benefits. This is because the research involves interaction with human subjects.

Difference and Similarity

The difference between the two IRBs is that for full board, the applications requiring review are reviewed on the scheduled IRB meeting dates while for expedited review, the applications are accepted and reviewed on a continuous basis. Both have similar goals which is to ensure that the data collected for research purposes puts into consideration the, privileges, confidentiality, welfare, and rights of those who accept to be part of the study are protected.

Importance

IRBs are an oversight committee which are governed by the federal regulations and its main purpose is to protect and manage risk to human participators in research. Therefore every organization carrying out research should get approval before they embark on their research projects. Since IRBs are concerned with protecting peoples involved in a research, every company should place importance in IRBs.

Conclusion

This essay has offered a comparison and similarity between expedited and full board review. IRBs may be used in different organizations such as education and healthcare organizations. Both the expedited and full board reviews have a major goal which is to protect the rights, welfare and keep the information of the human subject involved confidential.

References        

Chambers, J. D., Thorat, T., Wilkinson, C. L., & Neumann, P. J. (2017). Drugs cleared through the FDA’s expedited review offer greater gains than drugs approved by conventional process. Health Affairs, 36(8), 1408-1415.

Check, D. K., Weinfurt, K. P., Dombeck, C. B., Kramer, J. M., & Flynn, K. E. (2013). Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature. Clinical Trials, 10(4), 560-567.

Linder, K. E., Elek, E. D., & Calderon, L. (2014). SoTL and the Institutional Review Board: Considerations before Navigating the Application Process for Classroom Research in Higher Education. Journal of the Scholarship of s0Teaching and Learning, 14(2), 1-14.

Musoba, G. D., Jacob, S. A., & Robinson, L. J. (2014). The Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Faculty: Does the IRB Challenge Faculty Professionalism in the Social Sciences?. The Qualitative Report, 19(51), 1-14.