A few weeks ago, a correspondent asked me what reforms individual universities can implement while awaiting systemic, regulatory reform. It's an excellent question, so here's a roundup from material previously covered on the blog.
No university has adopted all of these measures, and at least one of these measures has not been adopted by any. But most of them are in place already, and there's no reason they can't spread.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
What Can One University Do?
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
10:13 AM
Labels:
aaup,
advisory boards,
appeals,
Belmont,
citi,
due process,
empirical research,
exemptions,
faculty governance,
george mason university,
michigan,
Ohio State,
oral history,
Princeton,
reform,
regulations,
TEAR,
usc
0
comments
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Boston College Oral History Roundup
I rely on the exceptionally thorough Boston College Subpoena News for updates on the efforts of the United Kingdom and United States governments to get access to oral history interviews of participants in Northern Ireland's Troubles, but I feel I should flag three items of special interest to readers of this blog.
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
1:51 AM
Labels:
boston college,
confidentiality,
crime,
criminology,
international,
lowman,
oral history,
palys,
shield,
subpoena,
United Kingdom
0
comments
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Federal Demonstration Parternship Pilots Exempt Wizard
In response to concern about "Over-review of Exempt Research", the Federal Demonstration Partnership is testing an Exempt Wizard, which would allow researchers to fill in a computer form and learn if their projects are exempt, rather than waiting for an IRB or IRB staff to make that determination.
Boston University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, College of Charleston, Sacramento State, New York University, and the University of Washington are participating in the trial.
This sounds most promising.
Boston University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, College of Charleston, Sacramento State, New York University, and the University of Washington are participating in the trial.
This sounds most promising.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
REB Members Beg U of Ottawa to Defend Confidentiality
IRB apologists sometimes argue that IRB review is necessary to ensure that universities will defend researchers and their participants from litigation. Boston College Subpoena News reminds us that ethics approval is no guarantee of such support.
[“News of Interest: Canadian Academics Strongly Defend Research Confidentiality, Call for University Support of Researchers.” Boston College Subpoena News, April 9, 2013. http://bostoncollegesubpoena.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/news-of-interest-canadian-academics-strongly-defend-research-confidentiality-call-for-university-support-of-researchers/.]
[“News of Interest: Canadian Academics Strongly Defend Research Confidentiality, Call for University Support of Researchers.” Boston College Subpoena News, April 9, 2013. http://bostoncollegesubpoena.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/news-of-interest-canadian-academics-strongly-defend-research-confidentiality-call-for-university-support-of-researchers/.]
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
1:20 PM
Labels:
Canada,
confidentiality,
criminology,
sex,
subpoena
0
comments
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Rivera: Faculty Researchers Are Notoriously Poor Judges of Risks
Suzanne Rivera, Associate Vice President for Research at Case Western Reserve University and member of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, responds to the AAUP's IRB report by asserting that faculty are inept at making determinations of exemption. I question this claim.
[Rivera, Suzanne A. “Academic Freedom and Responsibility |.” Bill of Health. Accessed March 28, 2013. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/03/24/academic-freedom-and-responsibility/. h/t Michelle Meyer]
[Rivera, Suzanne A. “Academic Freedom and Responsibility |.” Bill of Health. Accessed March 28, 2013. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/03/24/academic-freedom-and-responsibility/. h/t Michelle Meyer]
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
10:03 AM
Labels:
empirical research,
exemptions,
risk,
rivera,
SACHRP
0
comments
Monday, March 25, 2013
Report from the National Academies Workshop
Last week I attended the Revisions to the “Common Rule” in Relation to Behavioral and Social Sciences Workshop sponsored by the National Academies.
I live-tweeted the event on my @IRBblog account, and I have collected those tweets on Storify.
What follows are what I consider some of the key messages from selected presenters. The statements following each name represent my summary of the remarks, not necessarily a quotation or paraphrase.
I live-tweeted the event on my @IRBblog account, and I have collected those tweets on Storify.
What follows are what I consider some of the key messages from selected presenters. The statements following each name represent my summary of the remarks, not necessarily a quotation or paraphrase.
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
2:06 PM
Labels:
ANPRM,
behavioral,
biomedical,
citi,
conferences,
delay,
departmental review,
economics,
ethnography,
exemptions,
expedited,
michigan,
minimal risk,
NAS,
national academies,
psychology,
regulations
0
comments
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
National Academies Post Workshop Agenda
The National Academies has posted the agenda for their Workshop on Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule in Relation to Behavioral and Social Sciences, to be held tomorrow and Friday in Washington, D.C.
I plan to attend and to post comments to this blog. If I can establish WiFi, I may also live tweet at @IRBblog.
I plan to attend and to post comments to this blog. If I can establish WiFi, I may also live tweet at @IRBblog.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
On Signing the Markingson Petition
By April 1942, the Pentagon was 40 percent over budget, partly because it had been enlarged since first approved, but mostly because the original estimate of $35 million had never been realistic. Lieutenant General Brehon Somervell delayed telling Congress, but in June he finally sent Colonel Leslie Groves to appear before a House Apppropriations subcommittee.
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
12:36 PM
Labels:
biomedical,
clinical,
compliance,
Dreger,
drugs,
elliott,
markingson,
minnesota,
misconduct,
OHRP,
psychiatry,
transparency,
vulnerable
0
comments
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Tolich and Tumilty Explain TEAR
Martin Tolich and Emma Tumilty explain the origins and aims of The Ethics Application Repository (TEAR)
[Tolich, Martin, and Emma Tumilty. “Making Ethics Review a Learning Institution: The Ethics Application Repository Proof of Concept. Tear.otago.ac.nz.” Qualitative Research (January 3, 2013). doi:10.1177/1468794112468476.]
[Tolich, Martin, and Emma Tumilty. “Making Ethics Review a Learning Institution: The Ethics Application Repository Proof of Concept. Tear.otago.ac.nz.” Qualitative Research (January 3, 2013). doi:10.1177/1468794112468476.]
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
10:36 PM
Labels:
applications,
empirical research,
new zealand,
TEAR,
tolich
0
comments
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
National Academies Run Workshops on Common Rule Revisions
The National Academies are running workshops on "Revisions to the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences." I was unaware of the first two meetings in January, but I hope to attend the upcoming meetings on March 21 and 22.
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
12:51 PM
Labels:
ANPRM,
biomedical,
conferences,
economics,
levine,
national academies,
psychology,
reform,
regulations
1 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
