Who Decides? The Composition of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)—committees responsible for the protection of human subjects in medical and social science research—are coming under increasing criticism. Researchers find them to be a hindrance to their work, while non-scientists complain that IRBs provide inadequate protection. Meaningful reform of the system for protecting human subjects requires a complete understanding of the contemporary form and function of IRBs. To that end, this study provides a more complete understanding of the composition, workload, and work habits of IRBs. Data were gathered from a stratified random sample of IRBs drawn from a list of the 892 IRBs registered with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) as of February 2001. The IRBs were contacted by telephone and 87 of the sample of 89 chose to participate in the survey (a response rate of 98%). The survey revealed a number of problems with the current organization of IRBs including an overrepresentation of whites, researchers, and those affiliated with the concerned institution, and a lack of staff support for the increasingly heavy workloads of IRBs. These problems suggest two avenues of response to current criticism of IRBs: 1) increase the range of voices represented on IRBs to better comply with existing federal regulations and to provide more complete protection, and 2) lighten the burden of IRBs by increasing staff support, removing some of the roadblocks that frustrate researchers