[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.159.239.251. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Letters
May 10, 2000

Protection for Human Subjects in Medical Research

Author Affiliations
 

Phil B.FontanarosaMD, Deputy EditorIndividualAuthorStephen J.LurieMD, PhD, Contributing EditorIndividualAuthor

JAMA. 2000;283(18):2387-2390. doi:10.1001/jama.283.18.2387

To the Editor: Dr Woodward1 cites 1 study to generalize a claim that institutional review boards (IRBs) are overtaxed with protocols and spend only a cursory amount of time reviewing studies. My personal experience with 3 review boards, including 4 years of recent experience as an IRB member, goes against this. Under our current IRB rules, each study is reviewed in depth by 2 people, sometimes 3. This takes from a few minutes to an hour. At the IRB meeting, discussions of a well-constructed study without consent issues require 5 to 10 minutes. Studies with poor consent design or problems relating to their underlying science have taken over 45 minutes to resolve, often with a requirement that the investigator reply to criticisms at a later meeting. Our level of review is careful, and our IRB chair has explicitly defined our duty to protect research subjects.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×