For decades, scholars in the social sciences and humanities have questioned the appropriateness and utility of prior review of their research by human subjects' ethics committees. This essay seeks to organize thematically some of their published complaints and to serve as a brief restatement of the major critiques of ethics review. In particular, it argues that 1) ethics committees impose silly restrictions, 2) ethics review is a solution in search of a problem, 3) ethics committees lack expertise, 4) ethics committees apply inappropriate principles, 5) ethics review harms the innocent, and 6) better options exist.
SykesGMFeeling our way: A report on a conference on ethical issues in the social sciences. American Behavioral Scientist. 1967 Jun 1; 10 (10): 8–11.
2.
BoskCLThe new bureaucracies of virtue or when form fails to follow function. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. 2007 Nov 1; 30 (2): 192–209.
3.
HeimerCAPettyJBureaucratic ethics: IRBs and the legal regulation of human subjects research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2010 Dec; 6: 601–26.
4.
van den HoonaardWCSeduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences. University of Toronto Press; 2011.
5.
FostNLevineRJThe dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2007 Nov 14; 298 (18): 2196–8.
6.
KimSUbelPDe VriesRPruning the regulatory tree. Nature. 2009 Jan 29; 457 (7229): 534–5.
7.
SchragZMEthical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010.
8.
WynnL.L.Ethnographers’ experiences of institutional ethics oversight: Results from a quantitative and qualitative survey. Journal of Policy History. 2011; 23 (1): 94–114.
9.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Federal Register. 2011 Jul 26; 76: 44512–31.
10.
van den HoonaardWCIntroduction: Ethical norming and qualitative research. In: van den HoonaardWC, editor. Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division; 2002.
EdwardsSJLAshcroftRKirchinSResearch ethics committees: Differences and moral judgement. Bioethics. 2004 Sep 1; 18 (5): 408–27.
14.
JacobsSPStern lessons for terrorism expert. Harvard Crimson. 2007 Mar 23.
15.
MustanskiBEthical and regulatory issues with conducting sexuality research with LGBT adolescents: A call to action for a scientifically informed approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2011 Apr 29; 40: 673–86.
16.
GreenLALoweryJCKowalskiCPWyszewianskiLImpact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Serv Res. 2006 Feb; 41 (1): 214–30.
17.
BamberGJSappeyJUnintended consequences of human research ethics committees: Au revoir workplace studies?Monash Bioeth Rev. 2007 Jul; 26 (3): 26–36.
18.
CharbonneauLEthics boards harming survey research, says York professor. University Affairs. 2005 Jun 6.
ThorntonLCThe role of IRBs in music education research. In: ThompsonLKCampbellMR, editors. Diverse methodologies in the study of music teaching and learning. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age; 2008.
21.
Vander PuttenJWanted: Consistency in social and behavioral science institutional review board practices. Teachers College Record [Internet]. 2009 Sep 14 [cited 2011 Sep 15]; Available from: http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=15767.
22.
StarkLMorality in science: how research is evaluated in the age of human subjects regulation. 2006; from a PhD dissertation from Princeton University.
23.
ReverbySExamining Tuskegee: the infamous syphilis study and its legacy. UNC Press Books; 2009.
24.
StobbeMAP IMPACT: Past medical testing on humans revealed. Washington Post. 2011 Feb 27.
BuchananEAEssCMInternet research ethics and the institutional review board. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. 2009 Dec 1; 39: 43–9.
34.
SchragZMThe dormant right to expertise [Internet]. Institutional Review Blog. 2007 Oct 7 [cited 2011 Sep 15]; Available from: www.institutionalreviewblog.com.
35.
kohelet. comment on topic, “Do IRB's go overboard?” [Internet]. Chronicle Forums. 2010 Apr 10; Available from: chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=68012.0.
36.
TimmermansSCui bono? Institutional review board ethics and ethnographic research. Studies in Symbolic Interaction. 1995; 19: 153–73.
37.
University of California. University Committee on Research Policy (UCORP). Institutional review boards at UC: IRB operations and the researcher's experience [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2011 Sep 16]. Available from: www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/council/ac.irb.0507.pdf.
38.
SieberJEPrivacy and confidentiality: As related to human research in social and behavioral science. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, editor. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. 2001.
FitzgeraldMHPunctuated equilibrium, moral panics and the ethics review process. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2005 Nov 30; 2: 315–38.
41.
FrazerSJGThe golden bough. Courier Dover Publications; 2002.
42.
YanowDSchwartz-SheaPReforming institutional review board policy: Issues in implementation and field research. PS: Political Science & Politics. 2008; 41 (03): 483–94.
MaloneREYergerVBMcGruderCFroelicherE“It's like Tuskegee in reverse”: A case study of ethical tensions in institutional review board review of community-based participatory research. Am J Public Health. 2006 Nov; 96 (11): 1914–9.
45.
JanovicekNOral history and ethical practice: Towards effective policies and procedures. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2006 Nov 18; 4: 157–74.
JohnsonTSQualitative research in question. Qualitative Inquiry. 2008 Mar 1; 14 (2): 212–32.
49.
WhiteRFInstitutional review board mission creep: The common rule, social science, and the nanny state: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute. Independent Review. 2007 Spring; 11: 547–64.
ElwoodSNegotiating participatory ethics in the midst of institutional ethics. Ethics. 2007; 6 (3): 329–38.
53.
BradleyMSilenced for their own protection: How the IRB marginalizes those it feigns to protect. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies [Internet]. 2007; 6. Available from: www.acme-journal.org.
Keith-SpiegelPKoocherGPThe IRB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit?Ethics Behav. 2005; 15 (4): 339–49.
56.
MillumJMenikoffJStreamlining ethical review. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2010 Nov 16; 153 (10): 655–7.
57.
RobertsIPrieto-MerinoDShakurHChalmersINichollJEffect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. The Lancet. 2011 Mar; 377: 1071–2.
58.
WhitneySNSchneiderCEViewpoint: A method to estimate the cost in lives of ethics board review of biomedical research. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2011 Apr 1; 269 (4): 396–402.
59.
DingwallRThe ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. Twenty-First Century Society. 2008 Feb; 3: 1–12.
60.
TolichMFitzgeraldMHIf ethics committees were designed for ethnography. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006 Jun; 1 (2): 71–8.
61.
RasmussenLMNot all research is equal: Taking social science research into account. Am J Bioeth. 2008 Nov; 8 (11): 17–8.
62.
StarkLGaps in medical research ethics. Los Angeles Times. 2010 Oct 8.
WynnLLMasonPHEverettKHuman research ethics for the social sciences and humanities [Internet]. Available from: http://www.mq.edu.au/ethics_training/.
65.
CreagerAHaldonJ Responsible conduct of research workshop, June 14–15, 2010 [Internet]. Available from: www.princeton.edu/gradschool/about/docs/academics/HIS-HOS_503_RCR_syllabus_Final.pdf.
JohnsonCGRisks in the publication of fieldwork. In: SieberJE, editor. The ethics of social research: fieldwork, regulation, and publication. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1982.
68.
GradyCDo IRBs protect human research participants?JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2010; 304 (10): 1122–3.