Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Do IRBs Pass the Minimal Harm Test?

Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Brack
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Vol. 4, No. 1, Improving Psychological Science (Jan., 2009), pp. 28-29
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40212285
Page Count: 2
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Preview not available

Abstract

We describe examples of institutional review board (IRB) actions that have delayed or thwarted research that could not conceivably be considered to pose more than minimal risk to participants. We propose three changes to improve the IRB process and reduce both human and financial costs.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
28
    28
  • Thumbnail: Page 
29
    29