An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is an administrative body formulated to protect and preserve the rights and welfare of human research subjects taking part in research-related activities regardless of whether the research is funded or not. In its mandate, the IRB has the power to disapprove, approve, monitor, or necessitate changes and modifications to all research-based activities that fall within its jurisdiction in accordance with the specified federal regulations, as well as the policies of the institution involved. The IRB is conventionally made up of five members from different backgrounds. Out of the five, one is not affiliated with the institution, and one is not a scientist. The diversity is meant to provide an unbiased and competent review of the research as well as the legal, scientific, institutional, and social implications of the research. In addition, the organization of the body incorporates consultants who from time-to-time not only advise the board but also take part in protocol review. This paper aims at providing a discourse on two different types of IRBs as well as their comparisons. Ultimately, the degree of salience to be accorded by organizations regarding the IRBs will also be discussed.
Of the two forms to be compared, one is the IRB involved in conducting an expedited review. Rather than the board convening a meeting to conduct the expedited review, one qualified or competent member of the board can carry out the review. Applied in an organization, the one-member review board exercises all the powers accorded to him or her except disapproving a study. In essence, if the IRB under the expedited review cannot approve the research or study due to technicalities, then the study is referred to the full board review. However, to qualify for a referral, the study has to meet the minimum requirement. Conventionally, the minimum requirement is that the research has to bear no greater than minimal risk and must only follow the review categories described in the federal regulations, (Virginia Commonwealth University, 2017).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Comparatively, the second IRB to be discussed is the one involved in conducting a full board review. Unlike the expedited review, the full board review is conducted when the majority of the IRB members are present. In addition, in the full board review, at least one member with nonscientific concerns is present. In an organization, this review is conducted when the research proffers risks that are greater than the minimal risk. However, the full review board can also conduct a review of a study or research that presents minimal risks similar to the expedited review. Nevertheless, under the latter consideration, for the research to qualify for a full board review, either it has to fail the qualifications for expedited or exempt reviews. An organization can as well conduct or request the full body review for any expedited reviews that have not been approved.
In essence, the salience of institutional review boards is uniquely described in their objectivity and mandate as oversight committees. However, perhaps the most significant importance of the IRBs lies in the belief that they not only manage but also mitigate risks to human subjects taking part in research. This mandate makes the IRBs particularly valuable to the organization, especially because the safety and well-being of humans are important. Moreover, the IRBs protect organizations from ethical implications by ensuring that ethical values and principles regarding research are adhered to. Scientific research and studies are meant to be for the good of the community. As such, to achieve this mandate, the IRBs play a vital role in ensuring that only ethical and scientifically competent research is carried out and subsequently implemented. The IRBs and the different reviews they undertake address the wide spectrum of concerns that might potentially arise from the public regarding the conduct of research (Plymouth State University, 2018).
Given the importance of the IRBs, organizations should ensure that all research-based activities involving human subjects are subjected to review. Not only is this meant to preserve the ethics but also allay any potential concerns that the public might reserve regarding the research. To this end, the unparalleled importance of the IRBs should not be ignored by any organization.
References
Plymouth State University. (2018). Why is the IRB Important? Retrieved from https://campus.plymouth.edu/institutional-review-board/why-irb/
Virginia Commonwealth University. (2017). Types of IRB Review. Retrieved from https://research.vcu.edu/human_research/reviewtypes.htm
