3 ms·

I looked into this once and it was a few thousand dollars. "But Matt", you'll say, "Isn't that a drop in the bucket compared to an R01 (a few hundred thousand/

I looked into this once and it was a few thousand dollars. "But Matt", you'll say, "Isn't that a drop in the bucket compared to an R01 (a few hundred thousand/year), let alone a big program project grant? Why not spend a bit more to start data collection sooner?" This is a pretty tempting proposal. However, I think this analysis almost misses the point. Programs run by people who can land big grants usually involve someone who already knows how to navigate the IRB process and can get things approved relatively quickly. However, small or pilot projects tend to get bogged down, since the proposers have much less experience with the process, as in the article--and my own experience). These is especially true for people like the author, who aren't "full-time" human subjects researchers. The article didn't mention the projects' budget, but I would bet that if it wasn't zero, it was close to it (especially after covering salaries, etc). Even $1000 is going to be prohibitively expensive for many of these projects. More philosophically, I think overseeing research is part of a university's job (and, as I complained above), one that is already paid for via overhead. There's also something vaguely worrying about the incentives of a for-profit IRB.

icelancer 9y ago
>>I looked into this once and it was a few thousand dollars. Our IRB cost is 10% of that, or less, depending on the number you are choosing for "few." Maybe if you used WIRB or another IRB that is specific for drug trials, yes, it can run that expensive. For run of the mill published papers, no, you should not be using services like that. >>There's also something vaguely worrying about the incentives of a for-profit IRB. This would imply any reviewer or journal actually checks IRB qualifications on submission, review, or referee. Devor et al in the JSCR/Ohio State case and all the reviewers coming out as a result of that and saying they don't check IRB shows that it is anything but. Again, this isn't true for drug trials, but for expedited review minimal risk studies, there is no reason to be using bureaucratic and slow moving IRB providers. EDIT: >>Even $1000 is going to be prohibitively expensive for many of these projects. There are many IRB providers who do expedited review, minimal-risk, standard studies for less than half of this cost. EDIT2: >>I think overseeing research is part of a university's job (and, as I complained above), one that is already paid for via overhead. Sure. I'm not going to argue against the idea that the government or the university should do their jobs that they were paid to do. But they regularly and demonstrably do not, in far more fields than IRB. Private markets exist to go around this bureaucracy. IRB is no different.

icelancer 9y ago

>>I looked into this once and it was a few thousand dollars. Our IRB cost is 10% of that, or less, depending on the number you are choosing for "few." Maybe if you used WIRB or another IRB that is specific for drug trials, yes, it can run that expensive. For run of the mill published papers, no, you should not be using services like that. >>There's also something vaguely worrying about the incentives of a for-profit IRB. This would imply any reviewer or journal actually checks IRB qualifications on submission, review, or referee. Devor et al in the JSCR/Ohio State case and all the reviewers coming out as a result of that and saying they don't check IRB shows that it is anything but. Again, this isn't true for drug trials, but for expedited review minimal risk studies, there is no reason to be using bureaucratic and slow moving IRB providers. EDIT: >>Even $1000 is going to be prohibitively expensive for many of these projects. There are many IRB providers who do expedited review, minimal-risk, standard studies for less than half of this cost. EDIT2: >>I think overseeing research is part of a university's job (and, as I complained above), one that is already paid for via overhead. Sure. I'm not going to argue against the idea that the government or the university should do their jobs that they were paid to do. But they regularly and demonstrably do not, in far more fields than IRB. Private markets exist to go around this bureaucracy. IRB is no different.