Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 341–361 | Cite as

Towards a balanced approach to identifying conflicts of interest faced by institutional review boards

  • Sharon Kaur
  • Sujata BalanEmail author


The welfare and protection of human subjects is critical to the integrity of clinical investigation and research. Institutional review boards (IRBs) were thus set up to be impartial reviewers of research protocols in clinical research. Their main role is to stand between the investigator and her human subjects in order to ensure that the welfare of human subjects are protected. While there is much literature on the conflicts of interest (CIs) faced by investigators and researchers in clinical investigations, an area that is less explored is CIs that may affect members of IRBs during the institutional ethics review of clinical investigations. This article examines the notion of CIs in clinical research and attempts to develop a framework for a clearer and more balanced approach to identifying CIs that may influence members of IRBs and impede their independence. It will also apply the proposed framework to demonstrate how IRBs possess, or at least may appear to possess, forms of financial CIs and non-financial CIs. The proper identification and management of these CIs is critical to preserving the integrity of clinical investigations and achieving the primary aim of human subjects protection.


Clinical research Institutional review boards (IRBs) Conflicts of interests (CIs) 



We would like thank Mr. Peter Crook for his insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article.


  1. 1.
    Rothman, David. 2003. Strangers at the bedside: A history of how law and bioethics transformed medical decision making. New York: Adeline de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Surgeon General, Public Health Service (PHS) to the Heads of the Institutions Conducting Research with Public Health Service Grants. 1966. Clinical research and investigation involving human beings. ACHRE No. HHS-090794-A. Washington, DC: PHSCC.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    29th World Medical General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan. 1975. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. October. World Medical Association.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland. 2000. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. October. World Medical Association.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1978. Report and Recommendations on institutional review boards. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0008. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klitzman, Robert. 2011. “Members of the same club”: Challenges and decisions faced by US IRBs in identifying and managing conflicts of interest. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. 1996. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: Good clinical practice E6 (R1). June 10. Accessed Sept. 17, 2015.
  8. 8.
    Krimsky, Sheldon. 2006. The ethical and legal foundations of scientific ‘conflict of interest’. In Law and ethics in biomedical research, regulation, conflict of interest, and liability, ed. Trudo Lemmens and Duff R. Waring, 63–81. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thompson, Dennis. 1993. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine 329(8): 573–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Relman, Arnold. 1980. The new medical-industrial complex. New England Journal of Medicine 303: 963–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Relman, Arnold. 1985. Dealing with conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine 313: 749–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patents and Trademarks Amendments Act (the Bayh-Dole Act). 1980. Public Law 96-517, December 12.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Innovation’s Golden Goose. 2002. The Economist, December 12. Accessed June 23, 2015.
  14. 14.
    Kassirer, Jerome. 2001. Financial conflict of interest: An unresolved ethical frontier. American Journal of Law and Medicine 27(2–3): 149–162.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bekelman, Justin E., Yan Li, and Cary P. Gross. 2003. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 289(4): 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davidoff, Frank, Catherine D. DeAngelis, Jeffrey M. Drazen, et al. 2001. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. New England Journal of Medicine 345(11): 825–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. 2015. Grant and funding FAQs. Accessed June 28, 2015.
  18. 18.
    Gelsinger, Paul L. 2006. Uninformed consent: The case of Jesse Gelsinger. In Law and ethics in biomedical research: Regulation, conflict of interest, and liability, ed. Trudo Lemmens and Duff R. Waring, 12–32. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morin, Karine, Herbert Ratansky, Frank Riddick Jr, et al. 2002. Managing conflicts of interest. Journal of the American Medical Association 287(1): 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eichenwald, Kurt, and Gina Kolata. 1999. A doctor’s drug trial turns into fraud. New York Times, May 17. Accessed June 19, 2015.
  21. 21.
    Horton, Richard. 1997. Conflicts of interest in clinical research: Opprobrium or obsession? Lancet 349(9059): 1112–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joffe, Steven, E. Francis Cook, Paul D. Cleary, Jeffrey W. Clark, and Jane C. Weeks. 2001. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: A cross-sectional survey. Lancet 358(9295): 1772–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, Franklin G., Donald L. Rosenstein, and Evan G. DeRenzo. 1998. Professional integrity in clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 280(16): 1449–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lemmens, Trudo, and Benjamin Freedman. 2000. Ethics review for sale? Conflict of interest and commercial research review boards. Milbank Quarterly 78(4): 547–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shipp, Allan C. 1992. How to control conflict of interest. In Biomedical research collaboration and conflict of interest, ed. R.J. Porter and T.E. Malone, 163–184. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orlowski, James P., and Leon Wateska. 1992. The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns: There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Chest 102(1): 270–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Erde, Edmund. 1996. Conflicts of interests in medicine: A philosophical and ethical morphology. In Conflicts of interest. In Clinical practice and research, ed. Roy G. Spece, David S. Shimm, and Allen E. Buchanan, 12–41. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    European Parliament. 2001. On the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Directive 2001/20/EC. Accessed September 17, 2015.
  29. 29.
    United Kingdom. Parliament. 2006. The medicines for human use (clinical trials) regulations 2004 (as amended by S.I 2006/1928 & 2984). Accessed September 18, 2015.
  30. 30.
    Food and Drugs. 2012. Code of Federal regulations, title 21. Accessed September 17, 2015.
  31. 31.
    Emanuel, Ezekiel J., Anne Wood, Alan Fleischman, et al. 2004. Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine 141(4): 282–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eckenwiler, Lisa. 2001. Moral reasoning and the review of research involving human subjects. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11(1): 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Protection of human subjects (Common Rule). 2009. Code of Federal Regulations, title 45, part 46. Accessed September 17, 2015.
  34. 34.
    Bell, James, John Whiton and Sharon Connelly. 1998. Final report: Evaluation of NIH implementation of section 491 of the Public Health Service Act, mandating a program of protection for research subjects. Prepared for The Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health. June 15. Accessed September 17, 2015.
  35. 35.
    De Vries, Raymond G., and Carl Fosberg. 2002. What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they need? Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 9(3–4): 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Federman, Daniel D., Kathi E. Hanna, and Laura Lyman Rodriguez (eds.). 2003. Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schuppli, Catherine A., and David Fraser. 2007. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(5): 294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Anderson, Emily E. 2006. A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board members. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 13(2): 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    United Kingdom Department of Health. 2005. Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees. Accessed September 10, 2014.
  40. 40.
    National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 2001. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Accessed September 17, 2015.
  41. 41.
    Sengupta, Sohini, and Bernard Lo. 2003. The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and non-scientist members of institutional review boards. Academic Medicine 78(2): 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Campbell, Eric G., Joel S. Weissman, Christine Vogeli, Brian R. Clarridge, Melissa Abraham, Jessica E. Marder, and Greg Koski. 2006. Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry. New England Journal of Medicine 355(22): 2321–2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shamoo, Adil E., and Felix A. Khin-Maung-Gyi. 2002. Ethics of the use of human subjects in research: Practical guide. London: Garland Science.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cook, Ann Freeman, and Helena Hoas. 2011. Protecting research subjects: IRBs in a changing research landscape. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 33(2): 14–19.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Francis, Leslie. 1996. IRBs and conflicts of interest. In Conflicts of interest in clinical practice, ed. Roy G. Spece, David S. Shimm, and Allen E. Buchanan. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Edgar, Harold, and David J. Rothman. 1995. The institutional review board and beyond: Future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation. Milbank Quarterly 73(4): 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Evans, Donald, and Evans Martyn. 1997. A decent proposal: Ethical review of clinical research. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lidz, Charles W., Lorna J. Simon, Antonia V. Seligowski, et al. 2012. The participation of community members on medical institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7(1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vogeli, Christine, Greg Koski, and Eric G. Campbell. 2009. Policies and management of conflicts of interest within medical research institutional review boards: Results of a national study. Academic Medicine 84(4): 488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Department of Health and Human Services. 2004. Financial relationships and interests in research involving human subjects: Guidance for human subject protection. Federal Register 69: 26393–26397. Accessed September 18, 2015.
  51. 51.
    Food and Drug Administration. 2006. Guidance for industryUsing a centralized IRB review process in multicenter clinical trials. Accessed September 17, 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations