Do IRBs Pass the Minimal Harm Test?

Stephen J. Ceci; Maggie Bruck

doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01084.x

Do IRBs Pass the Minimal Harm Test?

Stephen J. Ceci, Maggie Bruck

School of Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

We describe examples of institutional review board (IRB) actions that have delayed or thwarted research that could not conceivably be considered to pose more than minimal risk to participants. We propose three changes to improve the IRB process and reduce both human and financial costs.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	28-29
Number of pages	2
Journal	Perspectives on Psychological Science
Volume	4
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01084.x
State	Published - Dec 1 2009

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Psychology

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01084.x

Cite this

@article{80eafcb7a28d4034b8e384acca755c93,

title = "Do IRBs Pass the Minimal Harm Test?",

abstract = "We describe examples of institutional review board (IRB) actions that have delayed or thwarted research that could not conceivably be considered to pose more than minimal risk to participants. We propose three changes to improve the IRB process and reduce both human and financial costs.",

author = "Ceci, {Stephen J.} and Maggie Bruck",

year = "2009",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01084.x",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "4",

pages = "28--29",

journal = "Perspectives on Psychological Science",

issn = "1745-6916",