Is change afoot in the regulation of social science research
by IRBs, especially low risk research involving surveys, interviews, and the
use of already existing data? One source of change could be the intensifying scrutiny
of IRBs. In April 2003, the Center for Advanced Study held a conference on IRBs
and published a white paper on the topic, Improving the System for Protecting
Human Subjects: Counteracting IRB “Mission Creep.” Next month at Northwestern University,
Philip Hamburger (Columbia)
and James Lindgren (Northwestern) are holding a conference on the First
Amendment implications of IRB regulations. If academic conferences can provoke
change anywhere, maybe it’s in academia. Another possible source of change is the
increasing interest of legal scholars in empirical research, which means more
IRB oversight of their work. Presumably, regulating legal scholars increases
the likelihood of an unhappy researcher filing a lawsuit against an IRB -- and
perhaps making the arguments generated at these conferences to a court. Whether changes
are likely and what changes are desirable are two of the topics up for
grabs this week.
During this second Blog Forum, four guest bloggers will
offer their perspectives on IRBs. Kristina Gunsalus of the University of Illinois’
Office of University Counsel and the College of Law (Urbana-Champaign)
has written widely on the topic of IRBs. She is the primary author of the
Center for Advanced Study’s white paper. Mark Hall and Ron Wright of Wake Forest University’s School of Law
have experience from the law school side of dealing with IRBs. Professor Hall
specializes in health care law and policy. Professor Wright specializes in criminal justice and administrative law. Jack Katz of U.C.L.A.’s Sociology Department is
a participant in the upcoming conference at Northwestern University.
He specializes in social psychology; ethnographic methods; urban communities; and crime, law and deviance.
Comments