Solomon Stephanie
a Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics , Saint Louis University , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Account Res. 2016;23(1):4-22. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.956865.
Every major U.S. commission appointed to review Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as well as numerous reports and scholarly articles have recommended increasing the number of lay (nonscientist and unaffiliated) members on IRBs. Meanwhile, qualitative studies have shown that lay IRB members experience confusion about their roles, including ambiguity whether their roles are different from other members of the board. Without articulating the unique reasons why unaffiliated and nonscientist members are needed, IRBs have little guidance on how to recruit and train these members, and how many should be at the table. By looking back through the history of IRB regulations, policies, and commentaries we can articulate unique contributions these members can make. Only with these contributions in mind can we make arguments for how to best achieve them and make the case that increasing their numbers is necessary.
美国每一个被任命来审查机构审查委员会（IRB）的主要委员会，以及众多报告和学术文章，都建议增加机构审查委员会中外行（非科学家且无关联）成员的数量。与此同时，定性研究表明，外行的机构审查委员会成员对自己的角色感到困惑，包括不确定自己的角色是否与委员会的其他成员不同。由于没有阐明需要非关联和非科学家成员的独特原因，机构审查委员会在如何招募和培训这些成员以及应该有多少成员参与方面几乎没有指导。通过回顾机构审查委员会法规、政策和评论的历史，我们可以阐明这些成员能够做出的独特贡献。只有牢记这些贡献，我们才能论证如何最好地实现这些贡献，并说明增加他们的数量是必要的。
