The term "institutional review board" refers to a formally established organization whose primary objective is to safeguard the security, rights, and welfare of study participants. It reviews whether the research study being used is suitable by concentrating on the advantages and disadvantages of the research participants. (Anderson & DuBois, 2012). The objective is to limit participant exposure to study risks compared to potential advantages of carrying out such a research. The study's supporting documentation is examined both before and during the research experiment. It must function in accordance with state and federal laws. Further, the board has the mandate of ensuring that the research conducted in the institution complies with the federal regulations and ethical standards of the university (Wilson et al., 2014). It is because of this that faculty members and students should seek approval of the IRB before conducting any research.
Ethical problems
There could be an issue that relates to the subject-matter of the research. This is categorized as a contentious, controversial, upsetting, embarrassing or sensitive matter in the research process. There could also be problems that relate to the study participants. These problems include the use of young people or children, engaging individuals of the vulnerable population, such as mentally or physically ill persons and the elderly. Further, the participants could be persons of an over-researched group, or they may fail to comprehend the language, which is used in the research process (Nicholls et al., 2015). The participants may also disclose the information from the research process, they may withdraw, they could be incentive to participate, and deception may prevail. In addition, the researcher could develop an element of bias, and there could be hazards or risks to researchers or the participants.
Impact of the ethical challenges
The potential ethical challenges have the impact of affecting the reliability and validity of the study findings. This is because the researcher could be biased and provide information, which does not reflect a true collection from the research process. Further, the participants will feel that they are not appreciated by the researcher (Porter et al., 2017). Consequently, they may decide to pull out from the research or offer information, which is biased and not directly related to the study process. The participants may also develop feelings of lack of the essence or significance of the study and not be keen on offering accurate information.
Ways to address the challenges
A good way to address these challenges is to ensure that there is effective assessment of the purpose, goal, and significance of the study (Lie & Wendler, 2017). This is followed by embracing a reliable recruitment strategy for the participants. Such a strategy should focus on providing information to the participants of what is expected to be accomplished from the study, as well as the length of the study. This will create an opportunity for the participants to develop a positive attitude to the study and aim at achieving success on the same. The researcher should also avoid developing personal bias on the topic of research.
Ethical values
Personal ethical values include honesty, integrity, and confidentiality (Carr, 2015). As such, the study will be conducted without any form of bias, but focused on representing what is really depicted from the study population in the research process.
References
Anderson, E. E., & DuBois, J. M. (2012). IRB Decision-Making with Imperfect Knowledge: A
Framework for Evidence-Based Research Ethics Review. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 951-969.
Carr, C. T. (2015). Spotlight on ethics: institutional review boards as systemic bullies. Journal of
Higher Education Policy & Management, 37(1), 14-29.
Lie, R. K., & Wendler, D. (2017). The Guinea Phase III Ebola Vaccine Trial: Lessons for
Research Ethics Review in Public Health Emergencies. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 39(2), 1-7.
Nicholls, S. G., Hayes, T. P., Brehaut, J. C., McDonald, M., Weijer, C., Saginur, R., &
Fergusson, D. (2015). A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review. Plos ONE, 10(7), 1-18.
Porter, K. M., Meyer, A., Diekema, D., Capron, A. M., Magnus, D., Wilfond, B. S., & ...
Kuwana, E. (2017). Research on Medical Practices (ROMP): Attitudes of IRB Personnel about Randomization and Informed Consent. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 39(1), 10-16.
Wilson, R., Kieburtz, K., Holloway, R. G., & H. Kim, S. Y. (2014). Evidence-Based Research
Ethics and Determinations of "Engagement in Research ". IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 36(2), 10-13.
