When asked if Institutional Review Boards are necessary, or at least beneficial, for research teams to work with, most people will readily say yes. “For ethical standards” is the mantra for this, as indeed, there have been instances in the government research sector itself when projects, funded by federal money, violated the very principles that the nation was founded upon. Most notable of these is the Tuskegee Experiment. When the Washington Evening Star newspaper made public the existence of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study in which dozens of black men were allowed to die without treatment, nearly everyone decried that there should have been an impartial board of people to oversee the experiment and, if necessary, terminate the project. Such is a prime example of how the existence of Institutional Review Boards would have helped ensure that experiments and studies seek to preserve the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and not undermine them.
That being said, one can likewise understand how the presence of Institutional Review Boards can hinder and delay the research process. There is a pernicious enemy: bureaucratic red tape. Having to go through channels and procedures can hold up research and delay the oft-times crucial publication of results, or sometimes even muzzle it completely, as in the case of one researcher who was barred from using her own research despite it being privately funded. Instances like these raise some questions concerning the role of Institutional Review Boards in the research community: How involved should Institutional Review Boards be in privately funded research? How much freedom should researchers be given? What regulations should be enforced to prevent the abuse of research subjects and ensure that the research promotes the good of society? How should these regulations be enforced?
As in many things, I believe the