Inconsistency and institutional review boards

Abstract

To assess the adequacy of peer review for research on human subjects, identical research protocols in oncology and anesthesiology were submitted to 32 institutional review boards (IRB) at major universities with medical colleges. Each of the protocols posed serious ethical issues, contained flaws in scientific design and provided an incomplete consent form. Twenty-two IRB participated in the investigation, which revealed: consistency in the nonapproval of the 3 protocols, substantial inconsistency among IRB in the reasons offered in support of similar decisions, and substantial inconsistency in the application of ethical, methodological and informed-consent standards for individual review boards. Revision of the protocols to satisfy particular objections would result in approval of flawed investigations.