I have been thinking a lot lately about the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Specifically, what role the IRB should play when I am designing a study.

The IRB was created by the National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) in 1974. It was founded to protect human participants, and every research institution now has an IRB. It consists of at least five members, both scientists and non-scientists, and usually has a “community member” serving as well. Before you run a study using human participants you propose the project to the board, and hope they give you permission.

I have a fear that it is easy to begin to see the IRB as the stone tablets of ethical behavior, easy to see their signatures as a confirmation that your research is moral. But we have to remember that this isn’t always the case.

We cannot hold a static list of rules as our only matrix for morality. Imagine if the Ten Commandments were our only guiding force. Milgram’s experiments would be the least of our worries. Or if we saw the initial Constitution as a static document to measure our behavior. Citizens of today would still be three fifths of a voter, or even less.

Our morals should not be dictated by stone tablets, or any one source of knowledge. Our moral compass cannot be a few other equally misguided humans, either. Our decisions must be based in both rationality and compassion. Otherwise we risk abusing the power our participants give us.

The guidelines set by the IRB on our campus are not the optimal level of acceptable behavior. They are the bare minimum, designed to protect the participants. We should treat them as such.

Yet it is hard, when designing a study, to find that balance. There is an intense desire to find the answer to your questions, especially when they deal with very emotional issues like childhood sexual abuse or eyewitness identification. The answers to the questions could literally help save lives. But the well being of our participants is just as valuable.

We, as researchers, need to be the final line of defense for the participants. We need to be the ones drawing the line before behavior is coercive or dangerous. We need to be the ones that hold ourselves to that standard, instead of waiting for the man on the mountain to bring us our stone tablets down.

-Amber.

Advertisement