Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011;14(6):337-45.
doi: 10.1159/000324931. Epub 2011 Apr 11.

Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers

Affiliations

Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers

K L Edwards et al. Public Health Genomics. 2011.

Abstract

Background: Researchers often relate personal experiences of difficulties and challenges with Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of their human genetic research protocols. However, there have been no studies that document the range and frequency of these concerns among researchers conducting human genetic/genomic studies.

Methods: An online anonymous survey was used to collect information from human genetic researchers regarding views about IRB review of genetic protocols. Logistic regression was used to test specific hypotheses. Results from the national online survey of 351 human genomic researchers are summarized in this report.

Results: Issues involving considerable discussion with IRBs included reconsent of subjects (51%), protection of participants' personal information (39%) and return of results to participants (34%). Over half of the participants had experienced one or more negative consequences of the IRB review process and approximately 25% had experienced one or more positive consequences. Respondents who had served on an IRB were about 80% more likely to report positive consequences of IRB review than their colleagues who had never served on an IRB (p = 0.03). Survey responses were mixed on the need for reconsent before data sharing and risks related to participant reidentification from genomic data.

Conclusion: The results from this study provide important perspectives of researchers regarding genetic research review and show lack of consensus on key research ethics issues in genomic research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Burke GS. Looking into the institutional review board: observations from both sides of the table. J Nutr. 2005;135:921–924. - PubMed
    1. Burris S, Moss K. U. S. Health researchers review their ethics review boards: a qualitative study. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006;1:39–58. - PubMed
    1. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 45, part 46, protection of human subjects, DHHS. 2005. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html - PubMed
    1. Lynn MR, Nelson DK. Common (mis)perceptions about IRB review of human subjects research. Nurs Sci Q. 2005;18:264–270. - PubMed
    1. Whitney SN, Alcser K, Schneider C, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Volk RJ. Principal investigator views of the IRB system. Int J Med Sci. 2008;5:68–72. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types