The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) recently published
a report, Research on Human Subjects: Academic freedom and the Institutional
Review Board, that is available on the web at
This report is sharply critical of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and
cites several anecdotes of abuse and misuse of the review process by IRBs. It
points out that any system that can effectively prevent researchers from
adopting a particular research approach is
obvious potential threat to academic freedom.
The report notes that there is no formal appeal process for an unfavorable
IRB finding, except possibly to another IRB. This represents
unchecked power granted to IRBs.
The AAUP report considered and rejected a recommendation that all research
in the social sciences and hmanities be exempted from research, but did still
make a rather strong recommendation. The report called for
research whose methodology consists entirely of collecting data by
surveys, conducting interviews, or observing behavior in public places be
exempt from the requirement of IRB review.
The AAUP report noted that much survey work was already exempt, but noted
the privacy issues that many IRBs have raised concerns about.
Confidentiality in respect to research data is certainly of great
importance. But we think that this concern is entirely met by long-standing
departmental and disciplinary practices for collecting and storing data. We
see no reason for believing that IRB members are better equipped to assess
practices for handling data in a discipline than members of the discipline
are, and we therefore see no reason for believing that additional oversight
by an IRB is necessary.
The problem, according to the report, is that IRBs overreact out of concern
for potential lawsuits.
Indeed, IRBs have objected to research protocols on the ground that
the subjects might find it distressing even to be asked the questions the
researcher wishes to ask them. We regard that as an unpardonable piece of
paternalism where the subjects are adults who are free to end their
participation at any time, or to refuse to participate at all.
If research involving human subjects is so tightly regulated, how does the
AAUP report suggest that the process be changed without requiring an act of
Congress? Most institutions have adopted a Federalwide Assurance (FWA), an
assurance that all research, and not just federally funded research, will be
reviewed by the IRB and will comply with all the appropriate federal
regulations.
The AAUP report argues that colleges and universities should adopt a
separate set of procedures for reviewing research that is not federally
funded. What sort of procedures? The report is deliberately vague on this
point, but does mention some possibilities.
Schools might consider an alternative under which the approval
required is limited to approval by the researcher's department or other
appropriate academic unit; this is arguably suitable at least for student
research'students do a considerable amount of the social science research
conducted by academic personnel. Or they might consider a revised version
of the IRB system mandated for federally funded research.
This is a rather provocative report and there are many issues to be argued
on both sides. Some researchers have long argued that IRBs are too powerful
and they are overly intrusive and meddlesome. Others have argued that the
existing regulations on research are already too weak and fail to prevent
many existing research abuses. I, myself, have conflicting feelings about
this report and would have difficulty fully endorsing or totally rejecting
their recommendations.
This web page was written and was last modified on
09/24/2007.
