Educational Research—To IRB, or Not to IRB? ?· Educational Research—To IRB, or Not to IRB? William F. Miser, MD, MA From the Department of Family Medicine, The Ohio State University. (Fam Med 2005;37(3):168-73.)
Post on 03-Feb-2018
Embed Size (px)
168 March 2005 Family Medicine
Imagine that you are Dr Stellar Educator and for thelast 5 years you have been teaching a course on profes-sionalism to medical students. As part of the course,you have collected data on attitudinal changes of thecourse participants. The collected data have been im-pressive, and you would now like to share your datawith the academic world by publishing the results inFamily Medicine. As you prepare the manuscript, acolleague mentions something about needing approvalby your local Institutional Review Board (IRB), andyou wonder whether this is really necessary. Is educa-tional research subject to the same standards and ex-pectations as is clinical biomedical research? Thispapers purposes are to answer this question and to re-view the standard requirements for human subjects pro-tection in educational research.
Historical BackgroundEdward Jenner, an English country physician, per-
formed one of the earliest documented research trialsinvolving human subjects. During the course of hiswork, he recognized that dairymaids infected with cow-pox were subsequently immune to smallpox. He thendeliberately infected James Phipps, the 8-year-old sonof his gardener, with cowpox in 1796 and then laterexposed him to smallpox. The boy failed to contractsmallpox. After repeating the experiment on other chil-dren, including his own 18-month-old son, Jenner con-cluded that cowpox vaccination provided immunity tosmallpox. Although a major scientific breakthrough, theway in which this research was conducted would to-day be considered unethical.
The importance of performing human medical re-search in an ethical manner came to public attention atthe end of World War II. In Nuremberg, Germany, 23Nazi physicians and scientists were put on trial for theinhumane treatment and murder of concentration campinmates who were used as research subjects withouttheir consent. In addition to the convictions, which in-cluded seven defendants being condemned to death,the Nuremburg court provided guidance as to the stan-
dards for conducting human medical research. Thesestandards, known as the Nuremburg Code, were thefirst attempt at establishing ethical guidelines for hu-man research.1
The World Medical Association, while meeting inHelsinki, Finland, in 1964, expanded the ethical guide-lines of the Nuremberg Code and adopted the Declara-tion of Helsinki.2 These guidelines, which have beenamended several times since adoption, set the stage forthe implementation of IRBs.
Meanwhile, several major research trials were on-going in the United States. Perhaps the most infamousof these was The Public Health Service Syphilis Study,also known as the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphi-lis in the Negro Male. Started in 1932, the US PublicHealth Service enrolled 399 illiterate and poor AfricanAmerican men, most of them sharecroppers from Ma-con County, Alabama, with the intent to study the natu-ral history of syphilis at a time when there was no avail-able treatment. Although penicillin became availableas a treatment for syphilis in the 1940s, the men in thestudy were denied this treatment (without consent). Thisresearch was continued until 1972, when a whistle-blower broke the news to the Washington Star. By thattime, 128 of the men had died directly from syphilis orits related complications, 40 of their wives had becomeinfected, and 19 of their children were born with con-genital syphilis, all despite the availability of effectivetherapy that was not provided to the study subjects.3
Due to the public outcry resulting from the Tuskegeestudy, Congress formed an ad hoc panel, which recom-mended that federal regulations be designed and imple-mented to protect human subjects involved in research.In 1974, Congress formed the National Commissionfor the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedicaland Behavioral Research. The charge for the NationalCommission was to identify basic ethical principles thatunderlie the conduct of research involving human sub-jects. These principles were subsequently published in1979 as the Belmont Report, which is now mandatoryreading for anyone involved in human subjects re-search.4 The three basic ethical principles put forth bythe Belmont Report are found in Table 1.
Today, these ethical principles that protect humansubjects during research have been placed into law asthe Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 Public Wel-
Educational ResearchTo IRB, or Not to IRB?
William F. Miser, MD, MA
From the Department of Family Medicine, The Ohio State University.
(Fam Med 2005;37(3):168-73.)
169Vol. 37, No. 3
fare, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFRpart 46).5 The Office for Human Research Protections(OHRP), housed in the US Department of Health andHuman Services (DHHS), reviews, updates, and over-sees these regulations. Any institution that receivesmoney from the US government to support researchmust comply with these federal regulations governingthe conduct of research involving human subjects. TheAmerican Educational Research Association (AERA),an international organization concerned with encour-aging scholarly inquiry related to education and pro-moting the dissemination and practical application ofits research, has adopted these principles.6
Definition of Human Subjects ResearchSo, what do Jenners smallpox study, the Nazi medi-
cal crimes, The Public Health Service Syphilis Study,and Dr Stellar Educators work all have in common?
They all constitute human subjects research and aresubject to the same ethical principles that have just beenoutlined.
Federal regulations define human subjects as liv-ing individual(s) about whom an investigator (whetherprofessional or student) conducting research obtains (1)data through intervention or interaction with the indi-vidual or (2) identifiable private information.5 Re-search is defined as a systematic investigation, includ-ing research development, testing, and evaluation, de-signed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowl-edge.5 These, along with other definitions, are found inTable 2.
In the case presented at the beginning of this article,Dr Educator was collecting data (attitudinal changes)from the students. That may be considered standard andacceptable practice for course evaluation and improve-ment. However, once Dr Educator decided to share the
The Belmont Principles4
Ethical Principle MeaningRespect for persons Individuals should be treated as autonomous human beings. That is, they are able to make their own decisions and are free to enter
into research voluntarily and with adequate information. Those who have limited autonomy (eg, diminished mental capacity, children,etc) must have extra protection. The requirements for informed consent and respect for the privacy of research subjects are derivedfrom this principle.
Beneficence Do no harm. Maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms from the research. The requirements to use the best possibleresearch design to maximize benefits and minimize harms and to ensure researchers are able to perform the procedures and to handlethe risks are derived from this principle.
Justice Equals ought to be treated equally. Subjects are to be treated fairly and the research designed so that the burdens and benefits areshared equitably. The requirements to select subjects equitably and to avoid exploitation of vulnerable populations or populations ofconvenience are derived from this principle.
Research A systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizableknowledge.
Human subject A living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains (1) data throughintervention or interaction with the individual or (2) identifiable private information.
Intervention Both physical procedures by which data are gathered (eg, venipuncture) and manipulations of the subject or the subjects environmentthat are performed for research purposes.
Interaction Communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject.Private information Information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is
taking place and information that has been provided for specific purposes by an individual and that the individual can reasonablyexpect will not be made public. Private information must be individually identifiable (ie, the identity of the subject is or may readilybe ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information) in order for obtaining the information to constitute researchinvolving human subjects.
Minimal risk The probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than thoseordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.
IRB approval Determination of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) that the research has been reviewed and may be conducted at an institutionwithin the constraints set forth by the IRB and by other institutional and federal requirements.
* Adapted from 45 CFR 46.102, Department of Health and Human Services.5
170 March 2005 Family Medicine
data by publication, thus making it general knowledge,the work becomes research and thus must be approvedby an IRB.
The IRBWhat Is It?Federal regulations require that all research involv-
ing human subjects be reviewed and approved by a lo-cal IRB prior to conducting the research. The majorpurpose of the IRB is to protect the rights and welfareof the subjects involved in the research.