Ezekiel Emanuel, Chair of the Department of Clinical Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, argues that "the crucial question is whether an IRB, regardless of its tax status, is performing at a high level of quality." We should, he says, "dump the outdated ideology of 'for-profit bad, not-for-profit good'" and focus instead on how the IRB is performing in its ethics reviews.
Emanuel argues that there are several examples of for-profit IRBs that are performing reviews just as well as, or better than, non-profit academic centers.
"The first IRBs to receive 'full accreditation'--the highest level of accreditation awarded by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs-- were one for-profit IRB, Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB), and one not-for-profit IRB, University of Iowa," says Emanuel. "And so it continued: of the first eight organizations to receive full accreditation, four were for-profit IRBs."
However, Trudo Lemmens (Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto) and Carl Elliot (Professor, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota) argue that commercial IRBs have a fundamental conflict of interest, because "they are in a client–provider business relationship with the commercial entities whose studies they review. Because commercial IRBs generate their income from clients with a direct financial interest in obtaining approval, they are affected by the very problem they are expected to curtail."
The financial interests involved are huge, they say. "Clinical trials are a crucial step in the drug development process. Any delay in approval by an IRB affects the sponsor's profit margins."
Lemmens and Elliot say that the countries that have allowed private IRBs to flourish have also failed to regulate them carefully: "Anyone who can bring together five people, including a community representative, a physician, a lawyer and an 'ethicist,' can set up shop and start competing for business."
Citation: Emanuel EJ, Lemmens T, Elliot C (2006) Should society allow research ethics boards to be run as for-profit enterprises? PLoS Med 3(7): e309.
PLEASE ADD THE LINK TO THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN ONLINE
VERSIONS OF YOUR REPORT: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030309
PRESS-ONLY PREVIEW OF THE ARTICLE: http://www.plos.org/press/plme-03-07-emanuel.pdf
National Institutes of Health
Clinical Bioethics Department (HNJ4)
10 Center DR MSC 1156
Building 10 Room 1C133
Bethesda, MD 20892, United States of America +1 301 435 8706
University of Toronto
Faculty of Law
78 Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario M52C5 Canada
University of Minnesota
Center for Bioethics
410 Church Street SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0346 United States of America
About PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine is an open access, freely available international medical journal. It publishes original research that enhances our understanding of human health and disease, together with commentary and analysis of important global health issues. For more information, visit http://www.plosmedicine.org
About the Public Library of Science
The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a non-profit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making the world's scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource. For more information, visit http://www.plos.org
PLEASE MENTION THE OPEN-ACCESS JOURNAL PLoS MEDICINE (www.plosmedicine.org) AS THE SOURCE FOR THESE ARTICLES AND PROVIDE A LINK TO THE FREELY-AVAILABLE TEXT. THANK YOU.
All works published in PLoS Medicine are open access. Everything is immediately available without cost to anyone, anywhere--to read, download, redistribute, include in databases, and otherwise use--subject only to the condition that the original authorship is properly attributed. Copyright is retained by the authors. The Public Library of Science uses the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 21 Feb 2009
Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.