Developing World Bioethics 12 (2):63-73 (2012)

Increasingly, US-sponsored research is carried out in developing countries, but how US Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) approach the challenges they then face is unclear.METHODS: I conducted in-depth interviews of about 2 hours each, with 46 IRB chairs, directors, administrators and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs in the United States (US) (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding), and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 (55%).RESULTS: US IRBs face ethical and logistical challenges in interpreting and applying principles and regulations in developing countries, given economic and health disparities, and limited contextual knowledge. These IRBs perceive wide variations in developing world IRBs/RECs' quality, resources and training; and health systems in some countries may have long-standing practices of corruption. These US IRBs often know little of local contexts, regulations and standards of care, and struggle with understandings of other cultures' differing views of autonomy, and risks and benefits of daily life. US IRBs thus face difficult decisions, including how to interpret principles, how much to pay subjects and how much sustainability to require from researchers. IRB responses and solutions include trying to maintain higher standards for developing world research, obtain cultural expertise, build IRB infrastructure abroad, communicate with foreign IRBs, and ‘negotiate’ for maximum benefits for participants and fearing ‘worst-case scenarios’.CONCLUSIONS: US and foreign IRBs confront a series of tensions and dilemmas in reviewing developing world research. These data have important implications for increased education of IRBs/RECs and researchers in the US and abroad, and for research and practice
Keywords research ethics  empirical ethics  informed consent  developing world bioethics  bioethics  investigators  research protocols
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00324.x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,447
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How Local IRBs View Central IRBs in the US.Robert Klitzman - 2011 - BMC Medical Ethics 12 (1):13.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Research Ethics Committees: A Regional Approach.Cheryl Cox Macpherson - 1999 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (2):161-179.
Views and Experiences of IRBs Concerning Research Integrity.Robert Klitzman - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):513-528.
Conflicting Interests, Social Justice and Proxy Consent to Research.Daryl Pullman - 2002 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):523 – 545.


Added to PP index

Total views
24 ( #405,743 of 2,326,342 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #644,397 of 2,326,342 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes