Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Author's response to reviews Title: IRB Challenges in Community-based Participatory Research on Human Exposure to Environmental Toxins: A Case Study Authors:
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Brody, Julia Green |
| Copyright Year | 2010 |
| Abstract | The paper is an important contribution to the field. The authors discuss their experience obtaining review of community-based participatory research by a university IRB. There is significant literature devoted to chronicling problems with IRBs; this paper extends this literature to community based participatory research (CBPR). The authors claim that CBRP is essentially different in relevant ways from other kinds of research (biomedical research in particular); that these ethically-relevant differences are largely unknown to IRBs, and that in their attempt to uphold standard ethical principles (respect for persons, beneficence, justice), IRBs actually fail to honor the spirit of these values. The authors claim that CBPR, due to its commitments to the community involved in the research, is actually better at upholding these values than some IRB protections. Finally, authors make suggestions that may improve the process of review for CBPR. Minor essential revisions: The author's should exercise caution over the scope of their claims about IRBs. For example, p3 "general unfamiliarity of many IRBs"; see also "most IRBs" (p13). Such claims are vague and appear anecdotal; authors appear to recognize that additional research needs to be done to quantify the issue; I recommend changing this throughout to something like: "unfamiliarity of IRBs in this sample". Notwithstanding the authors' methods for selecting IRBs based on NIEHS's Environmental Justice Program, the study does not involve a more systematic survey of IRBs reviewing CBPR. The current article is important even with out a quantified measure, so I would recommend the authors take care to note the ability to generalize the observations beyond those selected for this case study may have limitations pending a more systematic study. Discretionary Revisions A central claim in the paper is that IRB review is often inappropriate to the methods, challenges and objectives of other approaches to research from across the disciplines (p5). I would encourage the authors to clarify whether their claim is that CBPR is different in principle (incompatible with the existing regulations), or whether the problems they encountered are based on encounters with IRBS that lack appropriate qualifications and expertise (IRBs are not competent to review CBPR). It appears the authors' claim is that CBPR is different in principle; perhaps that could be clarified. Regardless of whether CBPR is different in |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art:10.1186%2F1476-069X-9-39/12940_2009_338_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art:10.1186%2F1476-069X-9-39/12940_2009_338_AuthorComment_V3.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
