title: IRB reformation: is unfettered access the answer?
abstract: The purpose of this column is to consider if research using only an interview should be evaluated by an institutional review board (IRB) or if it may be considered exempt. A review of atrocities committed by researchers both in the biomedical and psychosocial domains will be considered as a backdrop to the discussion. Issues that plague IRBs will be examined including lack of transparency, overreach of the process, and stipulations that change the nature of research. Finally, recommendations for reform will be entertained.
authors.affiliation: Associate Professor, Saint Xavier University Florczak@sxu.edu.
authors.forename: Kristine L
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Florczak
authors.affiliation: Professor, Saint Xavier University.
authors.forename: Nancy M
authors.initials: NM
authors.lastname: Lockie
mesh_terms: D001601:Bereavement; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics; D017009:Professional Autonomy
keywords: IRB; informed consent; protection of human subjects; transparency in research