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;6(7):e22796.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022796. Epub 2011 Jul 29.

"Members of the same club": challenges and decisions faced by US IRBs in identifying and managing conflicts of interest

Affiliations

"Members of the same club": challenges and decisions faced by US IRBs in identifying and managing conflicts of interest

Robert Klitzman. PLoS One. 2011.

Abstract

Conflicts of interest (COIs) in research have received increasing attention, but many questions arise about how Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) view and approach these.

Methods: I conducted in-depth interviews of 2 hours each with 46 US IRB chairs, administrators, and members, exploring COI and other issues related to research integrity. I contacted leaders of 60 IRBs (every fourth one among the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%). Data were analyzed using standard qualitative methods, informed by Grounded Theory.

Results: IRBs confront financial and non-financial COIs of PIs, institutions, and IRBs themselves. IRB members may seek to help, or compete with, principal investigators (PIs). Non-financial COI also often appear to be "indirect financial" conflicts based on gain (or loss) not to oneself, but to one's colleagues or larger institution. IRBs faced challenges identifying and managing these COI, and often felt that they could be more effective. IRBs' management of their own potential COI vary, and conflicted members may observe, participate, and/or vote in discussions. Individual IRB members frequently judge for themselves whether to recuse themselves. Challenges arise in addressing these issues, since institutions and PIs need funding, financial information is considered confidential, and COI can be unconscious.

Conclusions: This study, the first to explore qualitatively how IRBs confront COIs and probe how IRBs confront non-financial COIs, suggests that IRBs face several types of financial and non-financial COIs, involving themselves, PIs, and institutions, and respond varyingly. These data have critical implications for practice and policy. Disclosure of indirect and non-financial COIs to subjects may not be feasible, partly since IRBs, not PIs, are conflicted. Needs exist to consider guidelines and clarifications concerning when and how, in protocol reviews, IRB members should recuse themselves from participating, observing, and/or voting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Issues Concerning Identification and Manage of IRBs' Own and Others' COIs.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:454–465. - PubMed
    1. Levinsky NG. Nonfinancial conflicts of interest in research. New Engl J Med. 2002;347:759–761. - PubMed
    1. Boyd EA, Bero LA. Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry: A case study. JAMA. 2000;284:2209–2214. - PubMed
    1. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Causino N, Louis KS. Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1734–1739. - PubMed
    1. Shalala D. Protecting research subjects – what must be done. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:808–810. - PubMed

Publication types