Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Barriers to Effective Deliberation in Clinical Research Oversight

  • Published:
HEC Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethical oversight of clinical research is one of the primary means of ensuring that human subjects are protected from the natural bias of researchers and research institutions in favor of experimentation. At a minimum, effective oversight should ensure that risks are minimized and reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, protect vulnerable subjects from potential coercion or undue influence, ensure full and informed consent, and promote the equitable distribution of the risks and benefits of research. Because these assessments often involve value judgments for which there are no agreed-upon objective standards, we rely on deliberative procedures thought to have the greatest likelihood of producing the right or best outcomes. Concerns about the potential for improperly functioning IRBs to waste scarce human and institutional resources and impede biomedical progress have motivated a surge in empirical research assessing their procedures and outcomes. Yet within this literature, there has been minimal attention paid to the social scientific evidence regarding how individuals and deliberating groups make decisions, nor how those data might inform IRB practice. This essay seeks to fill that gap, locating recent empirical data on IRB composition and process within the context of data regarding what I call “deliberative pathologies,” or instances when deliberation fails to live up to one or more aspect of the deliberative ideal because of systematic biases in the ways participants interact. The paper goes on to make evidence-based recommendations to reduce the vulnerability of IRB deliberations to the kinds of pathologies discussed and indicate directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, L., & Grady, C. (2011). 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(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, R. D., Abbott, L. J., & Wichman, A. (2008). Nonscientist IRB members at the NIH. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 30(5), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. E. (2006). A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board members. Accountability in Research, 13(2), 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austen-Smith, D. (1995). Modeling deliberative democracy. Paper presented at the Workshop on Deliberative Democracy, University of Chicago, Chicago.

  • Candilis, P. J., Lidz, C. W., Appelbaum, P. S., Arnold, R. M., Gardner, W., Myers, S., et al. (2012). The silent majority: Who speaks at IRB meetings? IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 34(4), 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., & Abbott, A. S. (2000). Team medical decision making. In G. B. Chapman & F. A. Sonnenberg (Eds.), Decision making in health care: Theory, psychology, and applications (pp. 267–285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. ([1989] 1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. Bohman, & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics (pp. 67–91). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects.

  • De Vries, R., & Forsberg, C. P. (2002). Who decides? A look at ethics committee membership. HEC Forum, 14(3), 252–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. A. (2007). Defanging IRBs: Replacing coercion with information. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 735–747.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M. H., Phillips, P. A., & Yule, E. (2006). The research ethics review process and ethics review narratives. Ethics and Behavior, 16(4), 377–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1995). Toward a discourse ethic of solidarity. Praxis International, 5(4), 425–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. (2008). Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication, 25(1), 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunsalus, C. K., Bruner, E. M., Burbules, N. C., Dash, L., Finkin, M., Goldberg, J. P., et al. (2006). Mission creep in the IRB world. Science, 312(5779), 1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms (studies in contemporary German social thought). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger, P. (2007). Getting permission. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 405–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, G. P. (2005). The IRB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit? Ethics and Behavior, 15(4), 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klitzman, R. L. (2011). The myth of community differences as the cause of variation among IRBs. AJOB Primary Research, 2(2), 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klitzman, R. L. (2012a). Institutional review board community members: Who are they, what do they do, and whom do they represent? Academic Medicine, 87(7), 975–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klitzman, R. L. (2012b). US IRBs confronting research in the developing world. Developing World Bioethics, 12(2), 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klitzman, R. L. (2013a). How IRB leaders view and approach challenges raised by industry-funded research. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 35(3), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klitzman, R. L. (2013b). How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 224–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klitzman, R. L. (2013c). Views of IRBs concerning their local ecologies: Perceptions of relationships, systems, and tensions between IRBs and their institutions. AJOB Primary Research, 4(2), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuyare, M. S., Marathe, P. A., Kuyare, S. S., & Thatte, U. M. (2015). Perceptions and experiences of community members serving on institutional review boards: A questionnaire based study. HEC Forum, 27(1), 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E., Bratts, T., Zwanziger, J., & Stone, P. (2006). A survey of IRB process in 68 U.S. hospitals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36(3), 260–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88(5), 438–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidz, C. W., Appelbaum, P. S., Arnold, R. M., Candilis, P. J., Gardner, W., Myers, S., et al. (2012a). How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule? Academic Medicine, 87(7), 969–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidz, C. W., Simon, L. J., Seligowski, A. V., Myers, S., Gardner, W., Candilis, P. J., et al. (2012b). The participation of community members on medical institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London, A. J. (2012). A non-paternalistic model of research ethics and oversight: Assessing the benefits of prospective review. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 930–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A., Ceccarelli, R., & Rudin, S. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 512–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. In M. X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), Political decision-making, deliberation and participation (pp. 151–193). Greenwich, CT: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Health Service Health Research Authority (2012). Standard operating procedures for research ethics committees. In National research ethics service (Ed.), Version 5.1 (Vol. version 5.1).

  • Porter, J. P. (1986). What are the ideal characteristics of unaffiliated/nonscientist IRB members? IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 8(3), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, J. P. (1987). How unaffiliated/nonscientist members of institutional review boards see their roles. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 9(6), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, W. G., & Phuong, L. H. (2007). Ethical attitudes of nurse, physician, and unaffiliated members of institutional review boards. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39(1), 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saver, R. S. (2005). What IRBs could learn from corporate boards. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 27(5), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuppli, C. A., & Fraser, D. (2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(5), 294–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, S., & Lo, B. (2003). The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and non-scientist members of institutional review boards. Academic Medicine, 78(2), 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2000). Deliberative trouble? Why groups go to extremes. Yale Law Journal, 110(1), 71–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2003). The law of group polarization. In J. Fishkin & P. Laslett (Eds.), Debating deliberative democracy (pp. 80–101). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2006). Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulbert, C., & Risse, T. (2005). Deliberately changing the discourse: What does make arguing effective? Acta Politica, 40(3), 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). 45 CFR 46—protection of human subjects. Retrieved May 02, 2012.

  • Whitney, S. N., Alcser, K., Schneider, C. E., McCullough, L. B., McGuire, A. L., & Volk, R. J. (2008). Principal investigator views of the IRB system. International Journal of Medical Science, 5(2), 68–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The author is grateful to Derrick Francis Gray, Will van den Hoonaard, an audience at the 2014 meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, and two anonymous reviewers at HEC Forum for their helpful feedback on earlier iterations of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Baker Hall 155C, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219, USA

    Danielle M. Wenner

Authors
  1. Danielle M. Wenner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle M. Wenner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wenner, D.M. Barriers to Effective Deliberation in Clinical Research Oversight. HEC Forum 28, 245–259 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-015-9298-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-015-9298-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation