De Vries Raymond, DeBruin Debra A, Goodgame Andrew
Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, Suite N504 Boynton, 410 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Ethics Behav. 2004;14(4):351-68. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1404_6.
It is not unusual for researchers to complain about institutional review board (IRB) oversight, but social scientists have a unique set of objections to the work of ethics committees. In an effort to better understand the problems associated with ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBES) research, this article examinees 3 different aspects of research ethics committees: (a) the composition of review boards; (b) the guidelines used by these boards to review SBES--and in particular, behavioral health--research; and (c) the actual deliberations of IRBs. The article concludes with recommendations for changes in the review process and with suggestions for filling the gaps in knowledge about the way IRBs work.
研究人员抱怨机构审查委员会（IRB）的监督并非罕见，但社会科学家对伦理委员会的工作有一系列独特的反对意见。为了更好地理解与社会、行为和经济科学（SBES）研究伦理审查相关的问题，本文考察了研究伦理委员会的三个不同方面：（a）审查委员会的组成；（b）这些委员会用于审查SBES——尤其是行为健康——研究的指导方针；以及（c）IRB的实际审议情况。文章最后提出了审查过程变革的建议以及填补关于IRB工作方式知识空白的建议。
