debate the pros and/or cons of the current Institutional Review Board system. Provide solid, detailed evidence to support your stance on the issue. You should have at minimum 3 references for this discussion board (point deductions may be taken if this requirement is not met). Be sure to read your reference material critically, question it, and then defend, refute, or provide a new view. Things to consider to get you started:  Do IRBs effectively protect the rights and welfare of human subjects? Why or why not? Is there an effective model for reviewing research protocols (full review by all members or primary/secondary reviewers)? Is there more or less efficiency with local IRBs or central IRBs? Are there differences from the institution’s perspective? From the PIs’ perspective? Are IRB members sufficiently qualified to perform reviews? Who determines and how is it determined?

Leave a Reply