Reflections of an IRB Chair
Creator
Micetich, Kenneth Craig
Bibliographic Citation
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 1994 Fall; 3(4): 506-509.
Abstract
In summary, the local IRB is now and probably always will be the sole protection afforded the research participant. It is incorrect to perceive local IRBs as having jurisdiction only over the consent process. Multiple levels of review of a cooperative group- or company-sponsored protocol prior to IRB submission do not guarantee that there are no serious design flaws in the study that would render the results invalid or not statistically credible. The most serious error an IRB can make (on a par with failing to obtain proper consent) is to approve a study that cannot possibly test the hypothesis in a credible fashion.
Date
1994Subject
Cancer; Compensation; Conflict of Interest; Consent Forms; Consent; Drug Industry; Drugs; Economics; Ethical Review; Ethics; Ethics Committees; Federal Government; Financial Support; Food; Forms; Government; Human Experimentation; Industry; Informed Consent; Injuries; Investigational Drugs; IRB; Medical Devices; Random Selection; Regulation; Research; Research Design; Research Ethics; Research Ethics Committees; Research Subjects; Review; Risks and Benefits;
Collections
Metadata
Show full item recordRelated items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Reflections of an IRB Chair
Micetich, Kenneth Craig (1994-09)