Institutional Review Board - Basic Information

Basic Responsibilities of the Institutional Review Board

Responsibilities of the IRB include but are not limited to:

Review and approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove proposals for all research activities covered by this policy.
Require information given to subjects as part of informed consent is in accordance with Par. 46.116 of Title 45 CFR Part 46. The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in Par. 46.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
Require documentation of informed consent or may waive documentation accordance with Par. 46.117.
Notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure IRB approval of the research activity. If the IRB decides to disapprove a research activity, it shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and give the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
Conduct continuing review of research covered by this policy at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, but not less than once per year, and shall have authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent process and the research.

Organization of the Institutional Review Board

The IRB consists of ten members. Members of the IRB are required to be sufficiently qualified through their experience and expertise to consider all of the issues relevant to what constitutes good experimental research, both qualitative and quantitative. By creating a board with a diverse membership, consideration of issues related to race, gender, and cultural backgrounds are represented and addressed. Further, the IRB is cognizant of the need for sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes and, foremost, the safeguarding of the rights and welfare of human subjects. Among the members of the full Institutional Review Board are:

At least one member with Graduate Faculty standing.
One member whose primary interests lie within the scientific community.
One member whose primary interests lie outside the scientific community.
One member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution.
One student.

Review Process

All research activities that involve the use of humans as research participants must submit the IRB Approval Form and the appropriate Cover Form to the Institutional Review Board. If the research activity is a proposal to an outside agency (e.g., National Institutes of Health), the review form and proposals must be submitted to the Institutional Review Board before the proposal is mailed to the sponsoring agency. The review form can be obtained here or from the Office of the Institutional Review Board, Gregory Hall, Room 456.

The Chair of the Institutional Review Board determines whether the research qualifies for an expedited review (see below) or must receive a full review by the committee. If the research project does quality, the Chair of the Institutional Review Board will process the proposal and forward the proposal to one or two members of the board for review. Typically, this process takes 2 to 5 working days. Category II reviews can take up to 6 weeks so please plan ahead. Verbal notification of the approval can be forwarded to the principle investigator if needed. If the research project does not qualify for an expedited review, the Chair of the Institutional Review Board will convene Institutional Review Board for a full review of the research proposal.

Please note that, in order to receive a full review, all Research Proposals must be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to the scheduled date to begin the project.

Incomplete proposals will be returned for correction and will not be reviewed

The IRB does not review research utilizing published or publicly available documents or research on elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office. Research involving the use of animals as research participants falls under the review of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).