Parsing Words About IRB Statuses Pisses Me The Fuck Off..

I’ve been doing human research for better than a decade now (and, yes, I did just appeal to authority). Every study that I have ever done has at some point touched an Institutional Review Board and every study has involved some consideration of how to obtain informed consent.

IRBs can do a couple of things when they consider a study. They can approve or deny approval for a study’s conduct. They can exempt the study from review, meaning that the investigators may press on without IRB involvement. They can approve an informed consent process and document, or they can waive the requirement for informed consent.

Every paper that I have subsequently written has been published in a journal that requires two statements be made – 1) What is the study’s status vis-à-vis the IRB and 2) how was informed consent obtained?

I’ve been very fortunate because my studies have been straight forward. I’ve been able to state simply “This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the MRU School of Tomfoolery. All participants provided written informed consent.” Done. Moving on…

But what if your study was deemed exempt or you got a waiver to either not need to get consent or get verbal consent or some other such fuckery?

Well, then you say that.  You don’t say your protocol was approved if it was exempted from review. That’s not the same. And you don’t say anything about informed consent except the actual way you obtained it.

no me jodas

A mi, no me jodas on this one, scientists. No me jodas.

(Motivation for this rant can be found here. Carajo.)

About these ads

7 responses to “Parsing Words About IRB Statuses Pisses Me The Fuck Off..

  1. Reblogged this on Pub-Style Science and commented:
    See your point, and agree that the IRB status should be spelled out clearly. Something else you said on the twits was interesting…about the responsibility of reviewers to call out “egregious studies” that passed IRB. The IRB system of approval is (intentionally) vague and subjective…if a study is approved, what are the ethical responsibilities of various participants after that? I feel uncomfortable giving a single reviewer major authority to countermand a rendered decision…if there is an ethical concern remaining, shouldn’t it go back to the IRB?

  2. Same diff. Who cares?

  3. Isis the Scientist

    You’re right. No one. Might as well report p=0.057 and 0.05 too. Who cares?

  4. Very pertinent, regarding recent news about research done with Facebook users (eg here and other places: http://skepchick.org/2014/06/facebooks-unethical-research-project/#.U6_SyYChbFA.twitter)

  5. I had some very similar thoughts, and even went through the PNAS website to try to figure out what their policy is on informed consent statements in their articles. I couldn’t find anything in their instructions to authors section, so I’m not sure if I missed it, it’s located somewhere else, or they don’t require it for human research.

  6. CPP, yes, that is what I was looking for on PNAS’ web site! I was looking under “instructions to authors” and not “editorial policies.”

What do you have to say about that?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s