General Principles of IRB Review

  • Robert A. Greenwald


In the preceding chapters, we have discussed the historical, legal, and ethical background that led to the formation of the IRB system, and we have outlined how such committees should be constituted and financed. In Section II, we discuss in greater detail the principles and mechanisms of IRB review, the preparation and evaluation of informed consent procedures and forms, the procedures applicable to new drugs and medical devices, and the continuing review of approved research. These chapters are directed to a diverse audience—lay members of IRB committees, nonscientific professionals, and administrative staff—and, thus, the discussions will cover a broad range of issues as befits the multidisciplinary nature of IRB review.


Chief Executive Officer National Commission Human Subject Research Scientific Merit Investigator Competence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barber, B., Lally, J. J., Makarushka, J. L., and Sullivan, D., 1973, Research on human subjects: Problems of social control in medical experimentation, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Cowan, D. H., 1975, Human experimentation: The review process in practice, Case West. Reserve Law Rev. 25:533–563.Google Scholar
  3. Federal Register 1981, January 26, 46:8366-8392.Google Scholar
  4. Ghio, J. M., 1980, What is the role of a public member of an IRB? IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 2(2):7–9.Google Scholar
  5. Gray, B. H., 1975, An assessment of Institutional Review Committees in Human Experimentation, Med. Care 13:318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hendrix, T. R., 1977, Local institutional review boards, J. Med. Educ. 52:604.Google Scholar
  7. Levine, R. J., 1979, The evolution of regulations on research with human subjects, in: The Role and Function of Institutional Review Boards, Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, Boston.Google Scholar
  8. 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) 78-0009, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  9. Reatig, N., 1980, Can investigators appeal adverse IRB decisions?, IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 2(3):8.Google Scholar
  10. Veatch, R. M., 1979, Longitudial studies, sequential design, and grant renewals: What to do with preliminary data, IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1(4):1–2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Greenwald
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Rhuematology, Department of MedicineLong Island Jewish-Hillside Medical CenterNew Hyde ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineState University of New York at Stony BrookStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations