American Institutional Review Boards: Safeguards or Censorship?

• Published in: The journal of research administration Vol. 49; no. 1; pp. 31 - 42
• Main Author: Hottenstein, Kristi N
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington Society of Research Administrators, Inc 22.03.2018; Society of Research Administrators; Society of Research Administrators International
• Subjects: Academic Freedom; Agenda Setting; Biomedicine; Censorship; Censorship issue; Departments; Educational History; Educational Theories; Ethics; Experiments; Federal Regulation; Governing Boards; Government (Administrative Body); Government regulation; Guidelines; Handbooks; Higher education; Human experimentation in medicine; Human medical experimentation; Human Services; Human subjects; Informed Consent; Kingdon, John; Laws, regulations and rules; Medical research; Policy Analysis; Politics; Prevention; Public Policy; Quality Assurance; Quality Control; Research Administration; Review boards; Selection Criteria; Self-experimentation in medicine; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; Syphilis; Teaching, Freedom of; Volunteers; United States; United States > US; Germany
• ISSN: 1539-1590; 2573-7104

The United States is a world leader in biomedical clinical research. America's existing human subject research regulations structure affords sizable protections for the ethical treatment of research volunteers. Early initiatives such as the Belmont Report were specific to federally funded research. Over the past several decades guidelines such as the Belmont Report, along with more stringent policies, have been applied to non-federally funded research and research in the social sciences, and have branched out over areas, which many argue, they were not initially intended. Institutional review boards were codified to protect human subjects, an ethical and noble concern, but arguably these regulations were hastened both in response to a highly publicized research experiment and political considerations. This article explores the creation of the American IRB system through the lens of John Kingdom Multiple Streams Theory and examines critical viewpoints surrounding a longstanding inquisition over whether human subject research regulations are safeguards or censorship.