Abstract
Institutional review boards (IRBs) governing social and behavioral research seem to systematically exceed the guidelines established by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. We examine a clandestine study of prostitution and another of employment discrimination and conclude that IRBs, more concerned about being sued than they are about protecting research subjects, get in the way of science and cause ethical problems as a consequence. We discuss the ethical principles involved and call for a suspension of all IRB review in the social and behavioral sciences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dingwall, R. (2007). Turn off the oxygen.. Law & Society Review, 41, 787–795.
Duster, T., Matza, D., & Wellman, D. (1979). Field work and the protection of human subjects. The American Sociologist, 14, 136–142.
Federal Register. (1978). Institutional Review Boards: report and recommendation of the National Commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 43, 56174–56198.
Federal Register. (1981). Final regulation amending basic HHS policy for the protection of human research subjects. Department of Health and Human Services, 46, 8366–8392.
Feeley, M. M. (2006). Legality, social research, and the challenge of institutional review boards. Presidential Address delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Baltimore, MD July 8.
Feely, M. M. (2007). Response to comments. Law & Society Review, 41, 811–818.
Galliher, J. F., & Donnell-Watson, D. J. (2003). Accounting for Prostitution. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA August 16–19.
Hessler, R. M., & Galliher, J. (1983). Institutional review boards and clandestine research: an experimental test. Human Organization, 42(1), 82–90.
Katz, J. (2007). Toward a natural history of ethical censorship. Law & Society Review, 41, 797–810.
Mill, J. S. (1909). On liberty. Harvard classics. P. F. Collier & Son.
Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pager, D., & Quillian, L. (2005). Walking the talk? What employers say versus what they do. American Sociological Review, 70, 355–380.
Schwartz, R. D., & Skolnick, J. H. (1962). Two studies of legal stigma. Social Problems, 10, 133–142.
Seiler, L. H., & Murtha, J. M. (1980a). Federal regulation of social science research using “human subjects”: a critical assessment. The American Sociologist, 15, 146–157.
Seiler, L. H., & Murtha, J. M. (1980b). Government regulation of research. Society, 18, 23–31.
Stark, L. (2007). Victims in our own minds? IRBs in myth and practice. Law & Society Review, 41, 777–786.
Turnbull, C. M. (1987). The mountain people. Touchstone.
Wienk, R. E., Reid, C. E., Simonson, J. L., & Eggers, F. J. (1979). Measuring racial discrimination in American housing markets: The housing market practices survey. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Division of Evaluation, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193–220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hessler, R.M., Donnell-Watson, D.J. & Galliher, J.F. A Case for Limiting the Reach of Institutional Review Boards. Am Soc 42, 145–152 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-011-9122-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-011-9122-5