ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2013
How IRBs view and make decisions about social risks.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking ethical reflexivity and oversight in health research through an ecosystem approach: A workshop report.Research ethics · 2026Article
- Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Increasing equity in science requires better ethics training: A course by trainees, for trainees.Cell genomics · 2024Article
- Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?Ethics & human research · 2022Review
- From paper to screen: regulatory and operational considerations for modernizing the informed consent process.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Standards of evidence for institutional review board decision-making.Accountability in research · 2021Article
- The Complex Maze of the Informed Consent Process: Helping to Improve Comprehension in Clinical Trial Participants with Alzheimer's Disease.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports · 2020Article
- Ethics of Human Genome Editing.Annual review of medicine · 2019Review
- Consent requirements for research with human tissue: Swiss ethics committee members disagree.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Whether and how IRBs assess social risks remains unclear, with little empirical investigation. I contacted leaders of 60 IRBs, and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 (response rate = 55%) and additionally, 12 members and administrators. IRBs struggle to assess and balance social risks and benefits, and vary in whether, how, and how much to do so, and how to balance these against individual risks/benefits. Risks to a group affect individuals within it. Hence, social risks can include indirect individual risks, raising ambiguities. Dilemmas emerge: e.g., how much responsibility researchers and IRBs have for addressing broader health inequities. These data, the first to examine how IRBs make decisions about social risks, reveal how IRBs face critical challenges, dilemmas, and ambiguities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.