The Institutional Review Board is an Impediment to Human Research
Author Information
Author(s): Mark J Rice
Primary Institution: University of Florida College of Medicine
Hypothesis
Why do scientists use animals when so much research exists that can and should be performed with humans or human tissue?
Conclusion
The regulatory burden of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) discourages physician-scientists from conducting human-based research, leading to an increased reliance on animal-based studies.
Supporting Evidence
- Human-based research has been neglected in favor of animal-based research.
- Physician-scientists believe that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are more difficult to deal with than Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs).
- The difficulty in dealing with IRBs forces many physician-scientists to perform research with animals.
Takeaway
Scientists find it easier to get permission to study animals than to study humans, which means they often choose to work with animals even when they think human research would be better.
Potential Biases
The author's perspective may be biased towards human-based research due to personal experiences and frustrations with the IRB process.
Limitations
The article does not provide quantitative evidence to support the claims made about the regulatory burdens of IRBs compared to IACUCs.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website