Author(s):
Sampoornam. W, K. Jothilakshmi
Email(s):
sampoornamwebster@yahoo.in
DOI:
10.52711/2454-2660.2021.00109 
Address:
Dr. Sampoornam. W1, Mrs. K. Jothilakshmi2*
1Professor, Department of Mental Health Nursing, Dhanvantri College of Nursing, Pallakkapalayam, Namakkal.
2Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecological Nursing, Dhanvantri College of Nursing, Pallakkapalayam, Namakkal.
*Corresponding Author
Published In:
Volume - 9,
Issue - 4,
Year - 2021
ABSTRACT:
Context: IRB Forum Shopping is an under-researched yet highly-relevant ethical issue in the context of clinical research. IRB members review the proposed research methods to ensure the ethical principles. The IRB has the authority to approve or disapprove the research proposals that fall within the institutional policy and adheres to SOP (Standard Operating Procedures). When the research project has obtained an unfavorable or conditional IRB review, the researcher bypass the process of addressing the IRB’s decision by deserting the IRB and selecting another forum that will provide favorable review. Currently, proposed regulations to prohibit IRB shopping are available for public comment. The FDA report made clear that no empirical evidence exists to support the widespread of IRB shopping.
Cite this article:
Sampoornam. W, K. Jothilakshmi. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Shopping- Accessible for Public Comment. International Journal of Nursing Education and Research. 2021; 9(4):473-4. doi: 10.52711/2454-2660.2021.00109
Cite(Electronic):
Sampoornam. W, K. Jothilakshmi. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Shopping- Accessible for Public Comment. International Journal of Nursing Education and Research. 2021; 9(4):473-4. doi: 10.52711/2454-2660.2021.00109 Available on: https://ijneronline.com/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2021-9-4-19
REFERENCES:
1. Barbara G and Timothy D, 2002. What About the Role of the US Food and Drug Administration? Communications to the Editor. Volume 122, Issue 5, P1869-1870.
2. Bechert, T, 2011. Streamlining the IRB process: Avoiding unnecessary deliberation and effort. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices. 7(6):1-9.
3. Cola, P.A., Reider, C., and Strasser, J.E, 2013. Ohio CTSAs implement a reliant IRB model for investigator-initiated multicenter clinical trials. Clinical and Translational Science. 6(3):176-178.
4. IRB Advisor, 2013. Experts: Saving time while improving review quality is top priority. IRB Advisor, 13(8):85-88.
5. Ryan Spellecy and Thomas May, 2012. More than cheating: deception, IRB shopping, and the normative legitimacy of IRBs. J Law Med Ethics. 40(4):990-6.
6. D.R. Waring and T. Lemmens, 2006. Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest and Liability. University of Toronto Press, p. 149
7. David G. Foster, 2002. Independent Institutional Review Boards, 32 Seton Hall L. Rev. 513, 521
8. Kadam R, Karandikar S, 2012. Ethics committees in India: Facing the challenges! Perspect Clin Res. 3:50–6.