Should the Decisions of Institutional Review Boards Be Consistent?

In response to increasing concerns regarding inconsistency in the decision-making of institutional review boards (IRBs), we introduce the decision-maker’s dilemma, which arises when complex, normative decisions must be made regularly. Those faced with such decisions can either develop a process of a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ethics & human research 2019-07, Vol.41 (4), p.2-14
Main Authors: Friesen, Phoebe, Yusof, Aimi Nadia Mohd, Sheehan, Mark
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biomedical Research - standards
Decision Making
Ethics
Ethics Committees, Research - standards
human subjects research
Humans
Informed Consent
institutional review boards
IRB decision‐making
Research methodology
Research Subjects
Review boards
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In response to increasing concerns regarding inconsistency in the decision-making of institutional review boards (IRBs), we introduce the decision-maker’s dilemma, which arises when complex, normative decisions must be made regularly. Those faced with such decisions can either develop a process of algorithmic decision-making, in which consistency is ensured but many morally relevant factors are excluded from the process, or embrace discretionary decision-making, which makes space for morally relevant factors to shape decisions but leads to decisions that are inconsistent. Based on an exploration of similarities between systems of criminal sentencing and of research ethics review, we argue for a discretionary system of decision-making, even though it leads to more inconsistency than does an algorithmic system. We conclude with a discussion of some safeguards that could improve consistency while still making space for discretion to enter IRBs’ decision-making processes.
ISSN:2578-2355
2578-2363
DOI:10.1002/eahr.500022