IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v2y2008i1p65-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulatory innovation in the governance of human subjects research: A cautionary tale and some modest proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Burris

Abstract

Under US regulations known as the “Common Rule,” federally‐supported human‐subject research must be reviewed by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The Common Rule system from a distance looks like an innovative instantiation of prescriptions for constitutive regulation and soft law, but in practice has grown into a self‐referential, unresponsive, and legalistic bureaucracy. This article reviews criticism of the Common Rule. It also discusses why the system fails to regulate in an efficient and effective way, pointing in particular to the poor fit between the IRB and its assigned tasks. Turning to reforms, the article uses the heuristic of “regulatory space” to describe the range of actual and potential regulators with the capacity to set standards, monitor compliance, and discipline violators. Regulatory reform is framed by three conceptual changes: recognizing the limitations of the IRB as an oversight body; narrowing the range of risks the system is tasked to control; and disentangling the conflicting regulatory logics of behavioral standard‐setting and virtue promotion. The article concludes with a roster of possible changes that would make the IRB a more responsive regulator, enroll a wider range of actors in the promotion of virtue, focus resources on more serious risks, and address the structural causes of researcher misconduct.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Burris, 2008. "Regulatory innovation in the governance of human subjects research: A cautionary tale and some modest proposals," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 65-84, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:2:y:2008:i:1:p:65-84
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00025.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00025.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00025.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dawson, Liza & Kass, Nancy E., 2005. "Views of US researchers about informed consent in international collaborative research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1211-1222, September.
    2. Harvey, Ian & Chadwick, Ruth, 1992. "Compensation for harm: The implications for medical research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 1399-1404, June.
    3. Lenard I Lesser & Cara B Ebbeling & Merrill Goozner & David Wypij & David S Ludwig, 2007. "Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, January.
    4. Charles L. Bosk & Raymond G. De Vries, 2004. "Bureaucracies of Mass Deception: Institutional Review Boards and the Ethics of Ethnographic Research," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 595(1), pages 249-263, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kingori, Patricia, 2013. "Experiencing everyday ethics in context: Frontline data collectors perspectives and practices of bioethics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 361-370.
    2. Daniel M Cook & Elizabeth A Boyd & Claudia Grossmann & Lisa A Bero, 2007. "Reporting Science and Conflicts of Interest in the Lay Press," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-5, December.
    3. Timotijevic, Lada & Khan, Shumaisa S. & Raats, Monique & Braun, Susanne, 2019. "Research priority setting in food and health domain: European stakeholder beliefs about legitimacy criteria and processes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 116-124.
    4. Béné, Christophe, 2022. "Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    5. Antoine Popelut & Fabien Valet & Olivier Fromentin & Aurélie Thomas & Philippe Bouchard, 2010. "Relationship between Sponsorship and Failure Rate of Dental Implants: A Systematic Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-9, April.
    6. Scott, C. & Hawkins, B. & Knai, C., 2017. "Food and beverage product reformulation as a corporate political strategy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 37-45.
    7. Gary Sacks & Devorah Riesenberg & Melissa Mialon & Sarah Dean & Adrian J Cameron, 2020. "The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Marie A. Bragg & Brian Elbel & Marion Nestle, 2020. "Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Adolfo Maria Tambella & Anna Rita Attili & Gilles Dupré & Andrea Cantalamessa & Stefano Martin & Vincenzo Cuteri & Sabrina Marcazzan & Massimo Del Fabbro, 2018. "Platelet-rich plasma to treat experimentally-induced skin wounds in animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, January.
    10. Weldon, Isaac & Parkhurst, Justin, 2022. "Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Gorman, Dennis M. & Conde, Eugenia, 2007. "Conflict of interest in the evaluation and dissemination of "model" school-based drug and violence prevention programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 422-429, November.
    12. Campbell, Norah & Mialon, Melissa & Reilly, Kathryn & Browne, Sarah & Finucane, Francis M., 2020. "How are frames generated? Insights from the industry lobby against the sugar tax in Ireland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    13. Diels, Johan & Cunha, Mario & Manaia, Célia & Sabugosa-Madeira, Bernardo & Silva, Margarida, 2011. "Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 197-203, April.
    14. Lynch, Holly Fernandez & Eriksen, Whitney & Clapp, Justin T., 2022. "“We measure what we can measure”: Struggles in defining and evaluating institutional review board quality," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    15. Clapp, Justin T. & Gleason, Katharine A. & Joffe, Steven, 2017. "Justification and authority in institutional review board decision letters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 25-33.
    16. Ferrán Catalá-López & Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo & Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent & Manuel Ridao & Máxima Bolaños & Anna García-Altés & Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno & Salvador Peiró, 2012. "Coauthorship and Institutional Collaborations on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Network Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-9, May.
    17. Emma Beard & Robert West & Fabiana Lorencatto & Ben Gardner & Susan Michie & Lesley Owens & Lion Shahab, 2019. "What do cost-effective health behaviour-change interventions contain? A comparison of six domains," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-24, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:2:y:2008:i:1:p:65-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.