|
pubmed:abstractText |
Decisions by institutional review boards (IRBs) are presumed to reflect the norms and standards of the scientific community. Such criteria have shifted as changes have occurred in experimental interventions and protocols, codes of federal regulatory agencies, norms among investigators, and expectations of participants. The tension created by shifting norms and standards raises two questions: (a) Should IRBs evaluate the scientific (e.g., design) features of the proposed research, and (b) should consistent standards be expected even in areas that are in constant flux (e.g., AIDS research)? We discuss these questions and propose a mechanism to keep IRBs abreast of emergent issues and sensitized not only to the costs of doing research but also to the costs of not doing it.
|
