The SRA Symposium - College of Medicine

Obtaining knowledge about policy changes was ranked the third most important issue, though
the resources needed to accomplish this are not available. The staffing necessary to keep up with
new policies in human subject research does not seem to exist in predominantly undergraduate
institutions in the South. Of the respondents, only 20% have full-time staff and 20% have parttime
staff dedicated to working with the IRB. The remaining have full-time or part-time staff who
devote a small portion of their work hours to the IRB. Only 27% of the institutions employ a fulltime
Compliance Officer, who can dedicate larger amounts of time towards the IRB and keeping
updated on new federal policies. There is a great dissonance between what research administrators’
needs and concerns are and the resources and staffing available to handle them. Because an
incredible amount of work goes into human subject research, full-time staff is essential in ensuring
that universities and administrators are aware of federal policy changes. However, the limited
resources made available for compliance at Master’s I universities does not support this need.
None of the surveyed institutions are provided a budget specifically used to support the IRB and
their activities. Any money spent towards training, support staff, or compensation comes from the
research office budget. Therefore, very few Board members receive any kind of compensation for
their time and effort put into the IRB. Only 13% of the respondents provide compensation to IRB
members, of which only the chairperson or non-affiliated member receive.
With the completed surveys that have been returned, slight connections are visible among different
aspects of IRBs infrastructure. Some of our greatest challenges as research administrators must
be dealt with at the institutional level, since we have no affect at the federal level. Realizing that
many of these issues seem to exist among most Institutional Review Boards in the South provides
a clear picture of changes that need to be made. Many of us are dealing with the same issues, such
as a lack of budget, providing training, and limited resources, which overlap and affect one another.
Upon receipt of more completed surveys, I may begin to notice more defined trends and draw
conclusions about the infrastructure of IRBs at Master’s I universities in the South. After identifying
common problems and finding trends among IRBs and their infrastructure, research administrators
may begin to discover ways in which they can be fixed.
References
Bowen, A., Fleischman, A., Emanuel, E., Wood, A., et al. (2004). Oversight of human participants
research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine,
141(4), 282-291.
Bramstedt, K., & Kassimatis, K. (2004). A study of warning letters issued to institutional review
boards by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Clinical and Investigative Medicine,
27(6), 316-323.
Protecting human beings: Institutional review boards and social science research.
(2001, May/June). Academe, 87(3), 55-67.
Papers
2005 Symposium Proceedings Book 131