Institutional Review Board ( IRB) is a body of administration established by the federal government to protect the rights of human research subjects, by making sure that there is no infringement of their welfare when they conduct any research. During an investigation, IRB is mandated to approve, disapprove or monitor any research activity that falls within its jurisdiction. Many developing countries have local, national and regional IRBs that safeguard the ethics of researches about international and national’s codes, norms and regulations (Mohamadi, Asghari, & Rashidian, 2014). There are two types of IRBs, the local and central which are both of importance and are applied differently in different organizations.
IRB reviews how appropriate a research protocol is and also the benefits and risks of the participants. It ensures that the participants are not exposed to risks about the benefits that may occur during research. The local IRBs are the functions of academic institutions when conducting research and reviewing their trials only. On the other hand, central IRBs serve in the provision of multiple review entities. Central IRBs are restricted from using local IRBs unless with approval from the local IRB (Grady, 2015). As such, there may be a compelling reason for institutions choosing central IRBs rather than the local ones.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Most universities prefer central IRBs because they want a faster study which will enable them to get the information required at a specific time. Despite their decision, it is always not that straightforward. A good example is the Boston University whose IRB office looks over a protocol before deciding to transfer the jurisdiction to a different organization (Mohamadi, Asghari, & Rashidian, 2014). On the other hand, most academic researcher centers would go with local IRBs because it enables them to understand the attitudes and values of the local population in the study.
Both IRBs are similar in a way that they intend to ensure researchers are exposed to minimal risks through the adoption of measures acceptable to the benefits anticipated. Both also have equitable adherence when selecting their subjects of studies after accessing all the information needed to make a suitable decision. The key concern for both IRBs is to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the subjects and data collected (Moon, 2017). The local and central IRBs ensure minimal risks to the subjects by monitoring any given research at intervals.
Despite the similarities, the two IRBs are different especially with their roles in protecting the human subjects. With the local IRB, there is the possibility of bias in the research conducted due to its narrow scope. In contrast, central IRBs incorporates larger samples and multicenter trial of the subjects in the research (Moon, 2017). As such the role of Central IRBs in promoting justice and fairness is more intense as compared to the local ones during research. The turnout of staffs at local IRBs is much higher compared to that of Central IRBs, and it takes them a much longer time to hire someone. This is because it can take an individual to get someone new and train them up to a new speed at local the IRBs.
The IRBs play crucial functions to researchers and research institutions. The central IRBs have easier access to resources which is a major factor in minimizing risks to exposure. It also has staff and facilities availability which are important in the evaluation of the study. Also, central IRBs enables equitable observance and selection of subjects through the creation of a framework. For example, Pharma companies have been using central IRBs for a long time because it enables them to get research and protocols programs more efficiently and faster (Mohamadi, Asghari, & Rashidian, 2014). Local IRBs, on the other hand, are a functional element to academic institutions by hampering their access level to the most crucial resources. Despite the increase of trials sponsored by industries at academic institutions, the sponsors prefer the use of central IRBs by their academic researchers.
References
Grady, C. (2015). Institutional review boards: purpose and challenges. Chest , 148 (5), 1148-1155.
Mohamadi, A., Asghari, F., & Rashidian, A. (2014). Continuing review of ethics in clinical trials: a surveillance study in Iran. Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine , 7 .
Moon, M. R. (2017). Can Central IRBs Replace Local Review?. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , 45 (3), 348-351.
