IRB Institutional Review Board Guidelines

Foundation for Magnetic Science
Institutional Review Board Guidelines
Foundation Home Page: www.magnetfoundation.org

Back to PPS Main Page

I. Introduction and Establishment

The Foundation for Magnetic Science, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation (Foundation) has established an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that has the responsibility to review, and the authority to approve or disapprove, all research activities that use Foundation facilities, data, staff resources, or funding. Moreover, the IRB retains the same responsibility to previously approved activities and final review of the research Final Report.

The Trustees of the Foundation constitute the general IRB of the Foundation. Upon recommendation of the Executive Director and consent of a majority of the Trustees, the Executive Director may appoint such specific IRBs, consisting of one to three credentialed persons, as may be necessary or convenient to provide IRB oversight of specific research activities. All research activities overseen by an IRB shall be deemed Expressive Association Protected Speech of the Foundation.

The IRB is established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in Human BioAcoustics research activities and to oversee the conducting of research to assure its scientific validity.

The general IRB initially reviews research proposals and then either retains jurisdiction or refers to a specific IRB. The overseeing IRB reviews the proposal to assess the risks and benefits for the human subjects to be studied and the adherence of the proposal and final reports to generally accepted scientific standards. Each proposal is reviewed using criteria described herein. The research proposals are reviewed for safety, confidentiality (information about individuals is not released to anyone), degree of benefit, and the need for and quality of informed consent.

II. Research Protection of Human Subjects

The Foundation IRB ensures that all research observes three principles of ethics: (1) respect for persons; (2) beneficence (to do no harm, and to maximize benefit); and, (3) justice. The IRB looks closely at the negotiation between researcher and each potential volunteer, called the "informed consent process."

The following table shows how those three ethical principles in research apply to individual volunteers.

Ethical Principles

Individual Person

Respect for Person and Respect for Community

  • People are autonomous; researchers must give them required information and obtain their fully informed consent
  • The research does only what the person consents to. For instance, people are not identified in results without their explicit consent; they can refuse or withdraw their participation without pressure
  • Special people have special concerns. For instance, IRB should include members with expertise about such concerns.

Beneficence

  • Maximize benefits to individual volunteers. For instance, report their findings to them.
  • Minimize risks to individuals. For instance, protect their privacy to avoid being stigmatized

Justice

  • People with less power should not be asked to undergo risky research that is of little benefit to them
  • People with less power should be included in potentially beneficial research

 

III. IRB Protocol Review Standards - Criteria for IRB approval of research

A. IRB members are responsible for overseeing:

The IRB review standards table contains suggested questions that should be asked when considering if a research protocol meets regulatory requirements.

B. IRB Review Standards Table

Regulatory review requirement

Suggested questions for IRB discussion

1. The proposed research design is scientifically sound & will not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk.

(a) Is the hypothesis clear? Is it clearly stated?
(b) Is the study design appropriate to prove the hypothesis?
(c) Will the research contribute to generalizable knowledge and is it worth exposing subjects to risk?

2. Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result.

(a) What does the IRB consider the level of risk to be?
(b) What does the PI consider the level of risk/discomfort/inconvenience to be?
(c) Is there prospect of direct benefit to subjects?

3. Subject selection is equitable.

(a) Who is to be enrolled? Men? Women? Ethnic minorities? Children (rationale for inclusion/exclusion addressed)? Seriously-ill persons? Healthy volunteers?
(b) Are these subjects appropriate for the protocol?

4. Additional safeguards required for subjects likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence.

(a) Are appropriate protections in place for vulnerable subjects, e.g., pregnant women, fetuses, socially- or economically-disadvantaged, decisionally-impaired?

5. Informed consent is obtained from research subjects or their legally authorized representative(s).

(a) Does the informed consent document include the required elements?
(b) Is the consent document understandable to subjects?
(c) Who will obtain informed consent (PI, nurse, other?) & in what setting?
(d) If appropriate, is there a children's assent?
(e) Is the IRB requested to waive or alter any informed consent requirement?

6. Subject safety is maximized.

(a) Does the research design minimize risks to subjects?
(b) Would use of a data & safety monitoring board or other research oversight process enhance subject safety?

7. Subject privacy & confidentiality are maximized.

(a) Will personally-identifiable research data be protected to the extent possible from access or use?
(b) Are any special privacy & confidentiality issues properly addressed, e.g., use of genetic information?

The IRB has the authority to approve, require modifications in, or disapprove all research activities that fall within its jurisdiction as specified by both the federal regulations and local institutional policy. If the IRB determines that the research presents significant physical, social, or ethical risks to subjects, the IRB may modify, suspend, or terminate approval research that has been associated with serious harm to subjects.

IV. IRB Membership

A. General: Membership should usually consist of credentialed individuals with a diversity of members including consideration of race, gender, cultural backgrounds and sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes; include at least one member with primary concerns in the scientific area and at least one with primary concerns in the non-scientific area; and, when necessary or appropriate, include one member otherwise unaffiliated with the Foundation.

The potential for conflicts of interest should be considered when selecting membership candidates.

B. Training: All IRB members are urged to complete a computer-based training (CBT) that provides more detailed information about their roles and responsibilities. NIH IRB on-line course:

http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/IRBCBT/intro.html

On-line course for researchers:

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/hs/

V. Functions of the IRB

A. General: The IRB will: (1) conduct initial and continuing review of research and report its findings and actions to the investigator and the institution, recommending protocols and procedures to assure the validity of the research; (2) determine which projects require review more often than annually and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigators that no material changes have occurred since previous IRB review; (3) ensure prompt reporting to the IRB of proposed changes in a research activity, and ensure that such changes in approved research, during the period for which IRB approval has already been given, may not be initiated without IRB review and approval except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject and (4) ensure prompt reporting to the IRB of any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects, others, or any serious or continuing noncompliance with this policy and requirements or determinations of the IRB; and any suspension or termination of IRB approval.

B. Operations of the IRB: Under the overall supervision of the Executive Director, individual IRBs shall: (1) Schedule in- person or electronic meetings (meetings shall always be arranged so as to allow electronic attendance), (2) Distribute complete study documentation to all members for review prior to the meeting, (3) Vote to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove research activities based on compliance with IRB policies, and (4) Communicate with investigators to convey the need for additional information, IRB decisions, and criteria for appeals to the Board of Trustees (appeals determined by the Board are final decisions).

C. IRB Record Requirements: The Executive Director or designated Assistant for IRBs shall: (1) Maintain current list of membership, qualifications, and contact information; (2) Schedule meetings and record minutes of meetings; (3) Conduct communications to and from the IRB including annual renewal forms and (4) Maintain records of continuing review and results.

VI. IRB Review Process

A. The Principal Investigator (PI) must submit a complete proposal for Foundation IRB review. Once the IRB receives the proposal, a letter will be sent to confirm receipt of the proposal. This letter will also inform the PI if any essential components of the proposal are missing.

A Foundation IRB will review the proposal. It is the PI's responsibility, however, to submit the proposal to other IRBs, such as a university, health maintenance organization (HMO), hospital, or other federal agency (e.g., CDC, NIH) IRBs, as necessary.

The Executive Director or designated Assistant for IRBs will assign the proposal to an IRB member who has the most experience and background in the area of study. This member will become the Primary Reviewer (PR). Using a detailed checklist, the PR will review the proposal.

The PR provides the Executive Director or designated Assistant for IRBs and IRB members with a summary of his or her review. Usually each IRB member should receive a copy of the submitted proposal and the PR's review at least a week prior to the next regularly scheduled IRB meeting.

During the IRB meeting, the committee has an opportunity to discuss the research proposal. The Foundation IRB can vote to:

B. A letter with the decision is mailed to the PI. If the proposal is approved as is, or approved with recommendations, the work may begin once the IRB receives final letters of approval from all IRBs. If any changes are made to any part of the protocol, the changes must first be approved by all the IRBs.

If the proposal is approved with contingencies, the work may NOT begin until the PI has responded to the contingencies and has made appropriate changes to the proposal. The revised proposal must be submitted to the IRB for its review. The IRB members will review the PI's responses at the next regularly scheduled meeting and vote to either approve, approve with further contingencies, defer, or disapprove.

If the proposal is deferred, the work may NOT begin until the PI has responded to IRB requirements. Most deferrals are missing key requirements. The revised proposal must be submitted to the IRB for its review. The IRB members will review the PI's responses at the next regularly scheduled meeting and vote to either approve, approve with contingencies, defer, or disapprove.

If the proposal is disapproved the work may not be conducted. Most disapprovals are missing essential requirements.

C. Once the Foundation IRB approves a proposal, approvals will remain in effect for one year. At each anniversary of the initial approval, the PI must submit a research status report to the IRB. The annual reviews are in effect for the duration of the project. Should any changes to the protocol occur between reviews by the IRB, the PI should contact and notify the Executive Director or designated Assistant for IRBs as soon as possible, especially in reference to adverse effects.

D. At the completion of the project the PI is required to submit a Final Report to the IRB. The PI must obtain Foundation IRB approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, before any public presentation or publication of the data occurs. The Foundation may use the data and Final Report for its proper purposes. If the Final Report, or any interim report, is subject to Foundation Peer Review Standards and is successfully peer reviewed, it may be referred to as "Peer Reviewed Research."

VII. Information the Investigator Provides IRB

A. Overview: Procedures for IRB Review

Review IRB research guidelines to ensure compliance.

B. Research Proposals

A research packet must contain the following items to be considered complete:

A complete application expedites the review process. Please submit the original protocol plus 10 copies to the Foundation IRB.

See also Appendix A - Components of a Research Proposal
Appendix B - Detailed Research Protocol

C. Annual progress reports

Annual progress reports are usually done at one-year intervals from the date of initial review. The Executive Director or designated Assistant for IRBs will send an annual renewal form to the Principal Investigator. An annual progress report is considered complete when the investigators provide the following:

A complete progress report expedites the review process. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact any individual in the contact lists.

VIII. Publications

A manuscript review packet must contain the following items to be considered complete:

IX. Expedited review procedures

Expedited review procedures may be judged appropriate for certain kinds of research involving no more than minimal risk, and for minor changes in approved research.

Research that may be reviewed by the IRB through an expedited review procedure includes: (1) Some or all of the research found by the reviewer to involve no more than minimal risk; and (2) minor changes in previously approved research during the period (of one year or less) for which approval is authorized.

Under an expedited review procedure, the review may be carried out by the Executive Director or designated Assistant for IRBs or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the Executive Director or designated Assistant for IRBs from among members of the IRB. In reviewing the research, the reviewers may exercise all of the authorities of the IRB except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. A research activity may be disapproved only after review in accordance with the non-expedited procedure.

In the case of an expedited review procedure, all members shall be advised of research proposals which have been approved under this procedure.

Appeals of decisions shall be made in writing to the Board of Trustees whose decision is final and binding on all parties.

Appendix A

Components of a Research Proposal

The Foundation IRB's assessment of your research proposal involves a series of steps: (1) identifying the risks associated with the research, as distinguished from the risks the participants would experience even if not participating in the research; (2) determining that risks will be minimized; (3) identifying the probable benefits to be derived from the research; (4) determining that risks are reasonable in relation to the benefits to the participants, if any, and the importance of the knowledge to be gained; (5) ensuring that potential participants will be provided with an accurate and fair description of the risks or discomforts of the anticipated benefits; and (6) determining the intervals of periodic review.

To ensure that the IRB completes their review in a timely manner, your proposal must include the following information, as applicable:

If your proposal is missing any required items, review of your proposal will be delayed.

Appendix B

Detailed Research Protocol

Your research protocol should discuss in detail how you plan to carry out the research, how you will analyze the data that you collect, and what you plan to do with the results. The following are points that you should address in your protocol.

Introduction and Background

Study Design

Participants

Risks and Benefits

Adverse Effects

Confidentiality of Research Data

Consent Forms and Assent Forms

Drugs, Substances, and Devices

Additional Information

Appendix C

Informed Consent

Informed consent is one of the primary ethical requirements underpinning research with human participants; it reflects the basic principle of respect for people. It is too often forgotten that informed consent is an ongoing process, not a piece of paper or discrete moment of time. Informed consent ensures that prospective participants will understand the nature of the research and can knowledgably and voluntarily decide whether or not to participate. This protects both the participant, whose autonomy is respected, and the investigator, who otherwise faces legal hazards.

The Nuremburg Code, developed by the International Military Tribunal that tried Nazi physicians for the "experiments" they performed on unconsenting inmates of concentration camps, was the first widely recognized document to deal explicitly with the issue of informed consent and experimentation on human participants.

The Declaration of Helsinki further codified these concerns - http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm . In general, it provides:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

Federal regulations require that certain information must be provided to each participant:

The regulations further provide that the following additional information be provided to participants, where appropriate:

Investigators may seek consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective participant or his or her representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate, and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. Furthermore, the information must be written in language that is understandable to the participant or representative. The consent process may not involve the use of exculpatory language through which the participant or representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the participant's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, sponsor, institution, or agents from liability for negligence.

In your research protocol, you will need to explain the process of administering consent. The protocol should address the following questions:

In addition to a detailed discussion of the components of the consent and assent forms and the administration process, you will need to include labeled copies of each form specifying its type (e.g., parental consent, child assent, regular consent), participant (e.g., community focus group members, adult vaccine recipients), and situation where it will be used (e.g., for pretest of screening instrument, administration of a provider questionnaire, etc.).

Appendix D

Sample Informed Consent

Biomagnetics

REQUEST, PRIVATE LICENSE,

INFORMED CONSENT AND RELEASE

Participant: Date:

 

Address: Phone:

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned agree and certify:

First: Constitutional Request

1. The undersigned individual hereby requests (1) the evaluation of the current energetic, wellness and/or nutritional state of the undersigned and (2) advice on, and use of, diet, supplements and/or energetic means, to help the undersigned achieve and maintain a healthy status, through biomagnetic research evaluation.

2. The undersigned agrees not to act on such advice until the undersigned has had an opportunity for an examination by a licensed physician chosen by the undersigned, and received the evaluation and advice of such physician.

3. The undersigned makes the above requests as an exercise of natural right, within the Right of Privacy reserved by the people under the Constitution of the United States, Ninth Amendment.

4. The Research Practitioner and agents do not diagnose or prescribe for medical or psychological conditions nor claim to prevent, treat, mitigate or cure such conditions. They do not provide diagnosis, care, treatment or rehabilitation of individuals, nor apply medical, mental health or human development principles, but rather may provide modalities that may benefit, as permitted under AMA Code 3.04.

Second: Private License

1. The undersigned does hereby privately License the Practitioner, granting same authority to assist the undersigned in any and all ways to which the undersigned gives consent. This License authorizes the services stated in the Constitutional Request, First, above.

Third: Informed Consent and Release

1. The undersigned understands that the Practitioner and any organization through which the Practitioner conducts research evaluations only, as ministration for religious, charitable, scientific research and educational purposes. The organization(s) and Practitioner(s) do not diagnose, prescribe for, or treat disease conditions; nor do they claim to prevent, mitigate or cure disease conditions.

Persons who suspect medical conditions are advised to seek an appropriate health care professional. Our research may support wellness and healing, and may support treatment, but is not a treatment of disease by itself. It is no substitute for a licensed physician's diagnosis and treatment. If the undersigned has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, the undersigned will disclose this information to the Practitioner.

2. The undersigned does hereby give Informed Consent for biomagnetic, spiritual, energetic and/or nutritional consulting, as well as such spiritual, bio-energetic and/or nutritional work as may be conducted by the Practitioner. The organization and Practitioner make no medical claims, nor assume any responsibility for any claims. In no way do they claim that any magnets, equipment or nutritional services should or can be used to treat any disease condition. The undersigned further understands that any nutritional substances recommended may be purchased from any supplier. The undersigned has studied the alternatives and personally chose the work that is to be done.

3. The organization and Practitioners do not make any representations, promises or guarantees. The recommendations and modalities used are not intended to, and will not, prevent, mitigate, treat or cure any disease condition, including, but not limited to, cancer and immune deficiency diseases.

4. The undersigned does hereby accept full responsibility for the use of these procedures and advice, releasing, indemnifying and holding the organization and Practitioners harmless from all claims arising from participation in these procedures. The undersigned acknowledges that the Practitioner does not diagnose, treat or claim to prevent, mitigate or cure human disease. The undersigned agrees that the undersigned will not bring a complaint or lawsuit against the organization or Practitioner for any reason, including, but not limited to, the grounds that these recommendations and modalities are experimental, or are not approved, accepted or acknowledged to be effective. Biomagnetics is a research modality.

5. The undersigned does hereby give the organization and Practitioners permission to use the information gathered during these procedures, with personal identification removed (anonymous data), for research and educational purposes.

 

Dated: _______________________, 200___.

 

Research Practitioner Signature Client Signature

Client Address:

 

Consent form © 2007 Ralph Fucetola JD
www.vitaminlawyer.com

 

References

http://www.npaihb.org/epi/irb.html#guidelines
http://www.nihtraining.com/ohsrsite/guidelines/45cfr46.html
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/IRBCBT/intro.html
http://ninr.cm.net/4200-01.htm
http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap14_2.html
http://www.nihtraining.com/ohsrsite/guidelines/45cfr46.html
http://humansubjects.stanford.edu/nonmedical/IsitHS.html
http://humansubjects.stanford.edu/nonmedical/submission.html
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/hs/
http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/faqs.html#IRBOrg
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/irb/irb.html
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/irb/OrientationGudelines_Final.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/faqs.html#IRBOrg

© 2007 - Rev 01.24.07