Perceived Problems and Ambivalence Concerning Local IRBs |
---|
   ▪ Problems concerning local IRBs often recognized |
   ▪ But general wariness of CIRBs, and support for local IRBs |
Perceived Advantages of Local IRBs |
   ▪ Claims that local IRBs reflect community values |
   ▪ Local knowledge of subjects |
â—¦ Of vulnerable populations |
â—¦ Therefore, easier to judge risks and benefits |
   ▪ Local knowledge of PIs |
â—¦ "Track records"/reputations |
   ▪ Protecting "our own" subjects |
â—¦ Perceived responsibilities to protect local patients |
   ▪ "Curbside consults" with PIs |
â—¦ Formal and informal |
â—¦ Can facilitate mutual trust |
â—¦ More dialogue |
â—¦ Appreciation of local institutional culture |
   ▪ Desires for local autonomy, authority, and comfort |
â—¦ Against "being told what to do" |
â—¦ Wariness of centralized, federal bureaucracy |
Perceived Problems with CIRBs |
   ▪ Differences between CIRBs |
â—¦ Depends on who are members of the committee |
   ▪ For-profit CIRBs may have conflicts of interest |
Advantages of CIRBs |
   ▪ Rarely acknowledged |
   ▪ Streamlining work |
â—¦ Saving Time |
Disadvantages of Local IRBs |
   ▪ Discrepancies can arise due to: |
â—¦ Institutional culture and history |
â—¦ Personalities |
Local Members as Biased in Their Views of CIRBs? |
Other Possible Solutions |
   ▪ More guidance |
   ▪ More regional IRBs? |