Ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic research: Where should we go from here?

Raymond De Vries; Debra A DeBruin; Andrew Goodgame

doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1404_6

Ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic research: Where should we go from here?

Raymond De Vries, Debra A DeBruin, Andrew Goodgame

Center for Bioethics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

51 Scopus citations

Abstract

It is not unusual for researchers to complain about institutional review board (IRB) oversight, but social scientists have a uniqe set of objections to the work of ethics committees. In an effort to better understand the problems associated with ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBES) research, this article examines 3 different aspects of research ethics committees: (a) the composition of review boards; (b) the guidelines used by these boards to review SBES - and in particular, behavioral health - research; and (c) the actual deliberations of IRBs. The article concludes with recommendations for changes in the review process and with suggestions for filling the gaps in knowledge about the way IRBs work.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	351-368
Number of pages	18
Journal	Ethics and Behavior
Volume	14
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1404_6
State	Published - 2004

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was supported, in part, by Grant K01 AT00054 from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health. We thank Karen Howard for her assistance.

Keywords

Behavioral health research
Informed consent
Institutional review boards
Research ethics

Publisher link

10.1207/s15327019eb1404_6

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{99fa25e6c89d437399b7c02b43c0cc91,

title = "Ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic research: Where should we go from here?",

abstract = "It is not unusual for researchers to complain about institutional review board (IRB) oversight, but social scientists have a uniqe set of objections to the work of ethics committees. In an effort to better understand the problems associated with ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBES) research, this article examines 3 different aspects of research ethics committees: (a) the composition of review boards; (b) the guidelines used by these boards to review SBES - and in particular, behavioral health - research; and (c) the actual deliberations of IRBs. The article concludes with recommendations for changes in the review process and with suggestions for filling the gaps in knowledge about the way IRBs work.",

keywords = "Behavioral health research, Informed consent, Institutional review boards, Research ethics",

author = "{De Vries}, Raymond and DeBruin, {Debra A} and Andrew Goodgame",

note = "Funding Information: This work was supported, in part, by Grant K01 AT00054 from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health. We thank Karen Howard for her assistance.",

year = "2004",

doi = "10.1207/s15327019eb1404_6",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "14",

pages = "351--368",

journal = "Ethics and Behavior",

issn = "1050-8422",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic research

T2 - Where should we go from here?

AU - De Vries, Raymond

AU - DeBruin, Debra A

AU - Goodgame, Andrew

N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported, in part, by Grant K01 AT00054 from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health. We thank Karen Howard for her assistance.

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - It is not unusual for researchers to complain about institutional review board (IRB) oversight, but social scientists have a uniqe set of objections to the work of ethics committees. In an effort to better understand the problems associated with ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBES) research, this article examines 3 different aspects of research ethics committees: (a) the composition of review boards; (b) the guidelines used by these boards to review SBES - and in particular, behavioral health - research; and (c) the actual deliberations of IRBs. The article concludes with recommendations for changes in the review process and with suggestions for filling the gaps in knowledge about the way IRBs work.

AB - It is not unusual for researchers to complain about institutional review board (IRB) oversight, but social scientists have a uniqe set of objections to the work of ethics committees. In an effort to better understand the problems associated with ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBES) research, this article examines 3 different aspects of research ethics committees: (a) the composition of review boards; (b) the guidelines used by these boards to review SBES - and in particular, behavioral health - research; and (c) the actual deliberations of IRBs. The article concludes with recommendations for changes in the review process and with suggestions for filling the gaps in knowledge about the way IRBs work.

KW - Behavioral health research

KW - Informed consent

KW - Institutional review boards

KW - Research ethics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=12944295083&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=12944295083&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1207/s15327019eb1404_6

DO - 10.1207/s15327019eb1404_6

M3 - Review article

C2 - 16625729

AN - SCOPUS:12944295083

SN - 1050-8422

VL - 14

SP - 351

EP - 368

JO - Ethics and Behavior

JF - Ethics and Behavior

IS - 4

ER -

Ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic research: Where should we go from here?

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this