Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-qf55q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T04:33:35.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opening Closed Doors: Promoting IRB Transparency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Holly Fernandez Lynch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have substantial power and authority over research with human subjects, and in turn, their decisions have substantial implications for those subjects, investigators, and the public at large. However, there is little transparency about IRB processes and decisions. This article provides the first comprehensive taxonomy of what transparency means (or could mean) for IRBs — answering the questions “to whom, about what, and by what mechanisms?” It also explains why the status quo of nontransparency is problematic, and presents arguments for greater transparency from the perspective of a variety of stakeholders. IRB transparency will make boards more accountable, improve the quality of their decision-making, facilitate consistency in board decisions, permit empirical study of IRBs, promote research efficiency, and advance trust in the research enterprise, among a variety of other benefits. Regulators should promote IRB transparency, IRBs themselves should commit to sharing as much information as they can within the confines of confidentiality requirements, and investigators can endeavor to take matters into their own hands by sharing IRB correspondence and IRB-approved protocols and consent materials.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 46 , Issue 1: The Future of Informed Consent in Research & Translational Medicine: A Century of Law, Ethics & Innovation , Spring 2018 , pp. 145 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

45 C.F.R. 46.102(f) (2016). In January 2017, Final Regulations were published to update the “Common Rule.” 82 Fed. Reg. 7149 (Jan. 19, 2017). Given the uncertainly, in this article, citations will be provided both to the current regulatory provisions, as well as the regulatory sections as they will be modified under the revised Common Rule. In the revised Common Rule, this particular regulatory provision will be found at 45 C.F.R. 46.102(e) (2018).Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. 50.3(c) (2016). The FDA regulations have not yet undergone revision to harmonize with the revised Common Rule.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.109(a) (2016)(2018); 21 C.F.R. 56.109(a) (2016).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.111 (2016)(2018); 21 C.F.R. 56.111 (2016).Google Scholar
Florczak, K. L. and Lockie, N. M., “IRB Reformation: Is Unfettered Access the Answer?,” Nursing Science Quarterly 28, no. 1 (2015): 13–17, at 15.Google Scholar
Stark, L., Behind Closed Doors (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011). See also E. S. Dove, B. M. Knoppers, and M. H. Zawati, “Towards an Ethics Safe Harbor for Global Biomedical Research,” Journal of Law & the Biosciences 1, no. 1 (2014): 3-51, at 12; S. McMurphy, J. Lewis, and P. Boulos, “Extending the Olive Branch: Enhancing Communication and Trust between Research Ethics Committees and Qualitative Researchers,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 8, no. 4 (2013): 29-36, at 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Some courts have held that IRB proceedings and records are exempt from discovery in litigation, or otherwise privileged. See, e.g., Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 376 (Ct. App. Ca. 2012), and Looney v. Moore, 18 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (N.D. Ala. 2014).Google Scholar
Dove et al., supra note 6, at 12.Google Scholar
Clapp, J.T., Gleason, K.A., and Joffe, S., “Justification and Authority in Institutional Review Board Letters,” Social Science & Medicine 194 (2017): 25–33.Google Scholar
See Abbott, L. and Grady, C., “A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature Evaluating IRBs: What We Know and What We Still Need to Learn,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 6, no. 1 (2011): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Dove et al., supra note 6, at 40, 44; McMurphy et al., supra note 6, at 33; Florczak and Lockie, supra note 5, at 15; Bozeman, B., Slade, C., and Hirsch, P., “Understanding Bureaucracy in Health Science Ethics: Toward a Better Institutional Review Board,” American Journal of Public Health 99, no. 9 (2009): 1549–1556, at 1552; A. M. Mascette et al., “Are Central Institutional Review Boards the Solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's Report on Optimizing the IRB Process,” Academic Medicine 87, no. 12 (2012): 1710-1714; L. Stark, “IRBs and the Problem of ‘Local Precedents,'” in I. G. Cohen and H. Fernandez Lynch, eds., Human Subjects Research Regulation: Perspectives on the Future (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014): 182; J. Katz, “Toward a Natural History of Ethical Censorship, Legality, Social Research, and the Challenge of Institutional Review Boards,” Law & Society Review 41, no. 4 (2007): 797-810, at 806; A. Halavais, “Open Up Online Research,” Nature 480 (2011): 174-175, at 175; R. Klitzman, “The Ethics Police?: IRBs' Views Concerning Their Power,” PLoS One 6, no. 12 (2011): e28773; M. Tolich and E. Tumilty, “Making Ethics Review a Learning Institution: The Ethics Application Repository Proof of Concept – tear.otago.ac.nz,” Qualitative Research 14, no. 2 (2013): 201-212; V. Rahimzadeh, E.S. Dove, and B.M. Knoppers, “The sIRB System: A Single Beacon of Progress in the Revised Common Rule,” American Journal of Bioethics 17, no. 7 (2017): 43-46.Google Scholar
See “Symposium: The Future of Judicial Transparency,” Villanova Law Review 53, no. 5 (2008).Google Scholar
Daniels, N., “Accountability for Reasonableness,” BMJ 321, no. 7272 (2000): 1300–1301.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, “Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risk” (2015), available at <https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18998/sharing-clinical-trial-data-maximizing-benefits-minimizing-risk> (last visited February 28, 2018).+(last+visited+February+28,+2018).>Google Scholar
See “FDA Transparency Initiative Overview,” available at <https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/TransparencyInitiative/default.htm> (last visited May 27, 2017).+(last+visited+May+27,+2017).>Google Scholar
Bozeman et al., supra note 11, at 1554 (“A frequent problem in analysis of IRBs is inaccessible or unavailable data because of legal protections (privacy, confidentiality) or simply because of the reticence of participants.”)Google Scholar
Abbott and Grady, supra note 10, at 8. See also Nicholls, S. et al., “A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review,” PLoS One 10, no. 7 (July 30, 2015).Google Scholar
Clapp, Gleason, and Joffe, supra note 9.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Hudson, K. L. and Collins, F., “Sharing and Reporting the Results of Clinical Trials,” JAMA 313, no. 4 (2015): 355–356.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Dickert, N., Emanuel, E., and Grady, C., “Paying Research Subjects: An Analysis of Current Policies,” Annals of Internal Medicine 136, no. 5 (2002): 368–373 (noting that 31/32 research organizations analyzed had rules of thumb about paying research participants, compared to 12 with written policies).Google Scholar
Henry, S. G., Romano, P. S., and Yarborough, M., “Building Trust Between Institutional Review Boards and Researchers,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 31, no. 9 (2016): 987–989, at 987.Google Scholar
Abbott and Grady, supra note 10, at 7.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Minutes of Institutional Review Board (IRB) Meetings: Guidance for Institutions and IRBs,” September 2017, available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/minutes-institutional-review-board-irb-meetings-guidance-institutions-and-irbs.html-0> (last visited Nov. 12, 2017).+(last+visited+Nov.+12,+2017).>Google Scholar
World Medical Association, “Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,” Principle 23 (2013), available at <https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-formedical-research-involving-human-subjects/> (last visited February 28, 2018).+(last+visited+February+28,+2018).>Google Scholar
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), “International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans,” Guideline 23 (2016), available at <https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf> (last visited February 28, 2018).+(last+visited+February+28,+2018).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.103(b)(4) (2016), 46.108(a)(3)(i) (2018); 21 C.F.R. 56.108(a)(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.109(d) (2016) (2018); 21 C.F.R. 56.109(e). In the context of emergency research proposed to be conducted without prospective consent, the FDA regulations further provide that when an IRB determines that it cannot approve a trial because it fails to meet the applicable criteria for such emergency research or because it has other ethical concerns, “the IRB must document its findings and provide these findings promptly in writing to the clinical investigator and to the sponsor of the clinical investigation.” Additionally, the sponsor (not the IRB) must provide this information to FDA, as well as to all other of its investigators working on the same or similar trials, and to all other IRBs reviewing its trials. 21 C.F.R. 50.24(e).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.113 (2016) (2018); 21 C.F.R. 56.113.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.115(a)(2) (2016) (2018); 21 C.F.R. 56.115.Google Scholar
Office for Human Research Protections, “Guidance: Written IRB Procedures” (2011), available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/guidance-on-written-irb-procedures/index.html> (last visited May 27, 2017).+(last+visited+May+27,+2017).>Google Scholar
OHRP/FDA, supra note 24.Google Scholar
Coleman, C.H., “Rationalizing Risk Assessment in Human Subject Research,” Arizona Law Review 46, no. 1 (2004): 1–51, at 14.Google Scholar
Fiske, S.T., “Institutional Review Boards: From Bane to Benefit,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 4, no.1 (2009): 30–31, at 31.Google Scholar
Klitzman, R., “From Anonymity to ‘Open Doors’: IRB Responses to Tensions with Researchers,” BMC Research Notes 347 (2012): 5–9, at 6.Google Scholar
Coleman, supra note 33, at 14. See also Stark, supra note 6; Katz, supra note 11, at 800; Klitzman, supra note 11.Google Scholar
Abbott and Grady, supra note 10, at 6.Google Scholar
Klitzman, supra note 35.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Clapp, Gleason, and Joffe, supra note 9Google Scholar
Coleman, supra note 33, at 15, 50.Google Scholar
82 Fed. Reg. at 7208-09 (2017).Google Scholar
Mascette et al., supra note 11.Google Scholar
Coleman, supra note 33, at 14, 40.Google Scholar
Id., at 41-43.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Swenson, K., “Federal District Court Judges and the Decision to Publish,” Justice System Journal 25, no. 2 (2004): 121–142, at 122; D. C. Vladeck and M. Gulati, “Judicial Triage: Reflections on the Debate over Unpublished Decisions,” Washington & Lee Law Review 62, no. 4 (2005): 1667-1708, at 1676-1681.Google Scholar
L. Odwazny, HHS Office of General Counsel, personal communication.Google Scholar
In Maryland, IRBs must make final meeting minutes available for inspection within 30 days of receipt of a request from any party, although they are permitted to redact confidential or privileged information. Md. Code, Health §13–2003, available at <http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017rs/statute_google/ghg/13-2003.pdf> (last visited May 27, 2017).+(last+visited+May+27,+2017).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Federal Advisory Committee Act.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Freedom of Information Act.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Administrative Procedure Act.Google Scholar
This would also bolster arguments in favor of due process in IRB approval.Google Scholar
Klitzman, supra note 35.Google Scholar
Id.; McMurphy et al., supra note 11; Dove et al., supra note 11; Henry et al., supra note 22.Google Scholar
Mascette et al., supra note 11. See also Katz, supra note 11, at 806; Tolich and Tumilty, supra note 11, at 202-203.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Whitney, S. N. et al., “Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System,” International Journal of Medical Sciences 5, no. 2 (2008): 68–72.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Kempner, J., Merz, J.F., and Bosk, C.L., “Forbidden Knowledge: Public Controversy and the Production of Non-knowledge,” Sociological Forum 26, no. 3 (2011): 475–500, at 487.Google Scholar
Coleman, supra note 33, at 15. See also Halavais, supra note 11, at 175.Google Scholar
Studies demonstrate the desire for more IRB efficiency and less IRB variation. Abbott and Grady, supra note 10, at 6.Google Scholar
According to Condorcet's Jury Theorem, the fact that many decision makers have taken a particular approach is only an indication of the “truth” of that approach if (1) the individual decision makers are more likely than not to hold a true opinion, and (2) the decision makers form their opinions independently from one another. In that case, the more decision makers that have taken the approach, the more likely it is to be true. In contrast, if the individual decision makers are more likely than not to hold a false opinion, adding more decision makers has the opposite effect, making the group's likelihood of being right approach zero. See A. Goldman and T. Blanchard, “Social Epistemology,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016), available at <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/epistemology-social/> (last visited May 27, 2017). This theorem may have important implications for the utility of single versus multiple IRB review, which are beyond the scope of this article. (last visited May 27, 2017). This theorem may have important implications for the utility of single versus multiple IRB review, which are beyond the scope of this article.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=According+to+Condorcet's+Jury+Theorem,+the+fact+that+many+decision+makers+have+taken+a+particular+approach+is+only+an+indication+of+the+“truth”+of+that+approach+if+(1)+the+individual+decision+makers+are+more+likely+than+not+to+hold+a+true+opinion,+and+(2)+the+decision+makers+form+their+opinions+independently+from+one+another.+In+that+case,+the+more+decision+makers+that+have+taken+the+approach,+the+more+likely+it+is+to+be+true.+In+contrast,+if+the+individual+decision+makers+are+more+likely+than+not+to+hold+a+false+opinion,+adding+more+decision+makers+has+the+opposite+effect,+making+the+group's+likelihood+of+being+right+approach+zero.+See+A.+Goldman+and+T.+Blanchard,+“Social+Epistemology,”+The+Stanford+Encyclopedia+of+Philosophy+(2016),+available+at++(last+visited+May+27,+2017).+This+theorem+may+have+important+implications+for+the+utility+of+single+versus+multiple+IRB+review,+which+are+beyond+the+scope+of+this+article.>Google Scholar
Dove et al., supra note 6, at 39-40.Google Scholar
Stark, supra note 11, at 183.Google Scholar
See, e.g., “Duke University Health System Human Research Protection System, Policy Statement Regarding the IRB Approval Stamp on Consent Forms,” August 2015, available at <https://irb.duhs.duke.edu/sites/irb.duhs.duke.edu/files/IRB%20Approval%20Stamp%20on%20Consent%20Forms%208-19-2015.pdf> (last visited May 27, 2017).+(last+visited+May+27,+2017).>Google Scholar
This information need not be provided as a matter of course in informed consent materials, which are already too lengthy. But it could be provided in a link to more information, for example, for participants who are interested in learning more.Google Scholar
Stark, L., “Gaps in Medical Research Ethics,” LA Times, October 8, 2010 (calling on the regulators to “empower research participants by posting the results of ethics reviews online.”).Google Scholar
Dove et al. supra note 6, at 12; Coleman, supra note 33, at 14.Google Scholar
Katz, supra note 11, at 798 (2007)(noting, in the context of the morality of law, that decision makers should articulate reasons that can be reviewed publicly).Google Scholar
“The discipline of providing written reasons…often will show weaknesses or inconsistencies in the intended decision that may compel a change in the rationale or even in the ultimate result.” Reynolds, W.L. and Richman, W.M., “An Evaluation of Limited Publication in the United States Courts of Appeals: The Price of Reform,” University of Chicago Law Review 48 (1981): 573–631, at 603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 598-604 (demonstrating that a large fraction of unpublished judicial opinions failed to satisfy basic standards of quality, such as providing a rationale for the judgment).Google Scholar
See Abbott and Grady, supra note 10.Google Scholar
Ashcroft and Pfeffer argue persuasively that secrecy in the context of research ethics review cannot be justified. See Ashcroft, R. and Pfeffer, N., “Ethics Behind Closed Doors: Do Research Ethics Committees Need Secrecy?” BMJ 322 (2001): 1294–96.Google Scholar
Stark, supra note 11, at 182; Coleman, supra note 33, at 14, n. 84.Google Scholar
See Gottlieb, S., “Other Voices: Do No Harm,” Barron's 82, no. 24 (2002): 36.Google Scholar
See Klitzman, supra note 11 (suggesting that IRBs “post examples, with details redacted, of the types of concerns they have had about issues that arise in various protocols.”). Another option might be delayed publication of IRB “cases” so that they are available for reference later on, at some point when confidentiality may be less important.Google Scholar
Stark, supra note 11, at 183.Google Scholar
Coleman, supra note 33, at 14, n. 84.Google Scholar
Id., at 15, n. 90.Google Scholar
In the early 2000s, there was a flurry of clinical trials litigation, including suits naming IRBs and individual members, much of which was spearheaded by a single attorney, Alan Milstein. See S. Silverstein, “Clinical Trial Litigation,” available at <https://www.sskrplaw.com/clinical-trial-litigation.html> (last visited May 27, 2017). This raised some concern at the time that research litigation would become an increasing threat (see M. M. Mello, D. M. Studdert, and T. A. Brennan, “The Rise of Litigation in Human Subjects Research,” Annals of Internal Medicine 139, no.1 (2003): 40-45), but that does not seem to have been borne out. Research litigation does happen, but for a variety of reasons including lack of a private right of action in the applicable regulations, is relatively infrequent.+(last+visited+May+27,+2017).+This+raised+some+concern+at+the+time+that+research+litigation+would+become+an+increasing+threat+(see+M.+M.+Mello,+D.+M.+Studdert,+and+T.+A.+Brennan,+“The+Rise+of+Litigation+in+Human+Subjects+Research,”+Annals+of+Internal+Medicine+139,+no.1+(2003):+40-45),+but+that+does+not+seem+to+have+been+borne+out.+Research+litigation+does+happen,+but+for+a+variety+of+reasons+including+lack+of+a+private+right+of+action+in+the+applicable+regulations,+is+relatively+infrequent.>Google Scholar
Grady, C., “Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges,” Chest 148, no. 5 (2015): 1148–1155, at 1150-1151.Google Scholar
Avorn, J., “Paying for Drug Approvals — Who's Using Whom?,” New England Journal of Medicine 356 (2007): 1697–1700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., “Fees for JHM IRB Review,” Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Human Subjects Research Institutional Review Board (2013), available at, <http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institutional_review_board/about/fees.html> (last visited May 27. 2017).+(last+visited+May+27.+2017).>Google Scholar
Schrag, Z., “A Plea for ‘Networked Learning,’” Institutional Review Blog, June 26, 2010, available at <http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2010/06/plea-for-networked-learning.html> (last visited May 27, 2017).Google Scholar
Tolich and Tumilty, supra note 11. Another approach would be to create a website that would allow researchers to publicly report their problematic experiences with IRBs and how they were resolved, if at all. Feeley, M. M., “Legality, Social Research, and the Challenge of Institutional Review Boards,” Law & Society Review 41, no. 4 (2007): 757–776, at 766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, supra note 11, at 182.Google Scholar
Halavais, supra note 11, at 175.Google Scholar