Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
There is at present, far too little empirical research into the actual decision-making process of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and it is sobering to be reminded by Robert Klitzman's article that while theoretical debates might rage and prove fertile ground for new theories and better ways of approaching research ethics; ethics committee members must try to make sense of these concepts and apply them in very practical situations.1 Klitzman provides important insights into the …
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence
- The experiences of ethics committee members: contradictions between individuals and committees
- Strengthening ethics committees for health-related research in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol
- The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process
- Multicentre trials review process by research ethics committees in Spain: where do they stand before implementing the new European regulation?
- Education of ethics committee members: experiences from Croatia
- Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK
- Efficiency and the proposed reforms to the NHS research ethics system
- Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?
- Strengthening ethics committees for health-related research in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review