Introduction
The FDA regulatory standards describe Institutional Review Boards, also known as research and ethics committees, as a group of individuals formally assigned the role of monitoring and reviewing biomedical research, particularly those involving human subjects. According to the FDA, an IRB is mandated to disapprove, approve, or request modifications to research approaches, to ensure that researchers conform to ethical guidelines on research subjects. As a result, the ultimate purpose of an IRB is to secure the safety and well-being of human research subjects recruited in behavioral and biomedical research. Moreover, IRBs limit researchers from observing ethically valid and scientifically reasonable research. Therefore, the following essay discusses the importance of IRB in criminology and criminal justice research.
Discussion
IRBs serve a principal purpose in the safety and well-being of individuals participating in research as subjects. According to Bachman & Schutt (2013), research designs can incorporate various test approaches, some of which might not be in the best interest of their participants. Additionally, some research approaches might pose increased risks to individuals without scientific justification. As a result, Institutional Review Boards conduct mandatory assessments and evaluations on research projects and designs to limit any psychological, physical, social, and legal risks to the participants. However, if a researcher or group of researchers decided to conduct research with uncertain implications, with the potential to harm their participants, the IRB evaluates the associated study approaches to justify the scientific basis of the arguments and ascertain the participants’ informed consent (Hottenstein, 2018). For example, researchers investigating the impact of a particular drug on body functions or human mental functions cannot promise positive results on subjects as their tests might lead to adversities. However, the IRB can assess the risk levels and either approve or reject a research proposal based on their judgment.
In addition, IRBs are important because they protect human and animal rights by ensuring that research initiatives are in line with state, federal, and ethical stipulations. As such, IRBs limit researchers and scientists from carrying out unjustified research or adopting unethical practices during the research process. Ethics in research is a topic that has received notable attention over the years because of increased reports of research projects disbanded because of ethical violations in their designs. Bachman & Schutt (2013) suggest that researchers dealing with animal and human subjects often encounter several dilemmas because of conflicting moral principles and limited solutions to eradicate risks. As a result, they may carry on with research activities regardless of moral obligations, thus interfering with the credibility of their research. Nonetheless, IRBs carefully scrutinize research proposals and techniques used in the research to ensure that they adhere to ethical guidelines and acknowledge the rules of handling animals and human beings for the best outcomes.
Conclusion
Research plays a major role in uncovering solutions to various human issues and informing society of the causes of adversities. However, research involving human subjects receives notable criticism because of its high risks and uncertainties. Nonetheless, Institutional Review Boards play a crucial role in ensuring the safety of research subjects as they are mandated to assess the approaches adopted in the research and either approve or reject its commencement. Moreover, IRB evaluates the standards observed in research to ensure that they meet ethical guidelines and are in the best interest of humanity. On that account, IRBs serve an unmatched role as they limit crises due to research and associated projects.
Reference
Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2013). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice. Sage.
Hottenstein, K. N. (2018). American Institutional Review Boards: Safeguards or censorship?. Journal of Research Administration, 49(1), 31-42.