|
|
Background: Ethics has become increasingly important in the medical field, resulting in the heightened enforcement of institutional review boards (IRBs). Doctors in laboratory medicine have frequently distinguished themselves not only as researchers but also as scientific members on IRBs.
Methods: In line with thoughts that serving on IRBs might broaden our activity in academic society, we designed a cross sectional study with the feedback from non-scientific/non-affiliated (NS/NA) members. A survey was administered to NS/NA members to assess their levels of satisfaction with the IRB administrative office support and researchers, as well as their experience as NS/NA members.
Results: In respondents' feedback, the score for IRB office support was highest, followed by those of research protocols/researchers and their reviewer experiences (8.4, 7.5, and 7.8, respectively, p < 0.01). Moreover, current obstacles to sound operation of IRBs are NS/NA members’ feelings of being in the minority and the opinion that scientific members lack understanding regarding the purpose and functions of NS/NA members. Balancing the opinions and positions between scientific and NS/NA members are required for the continued improvement and efficiency of IRB sessions.
Conclusions: The development of educational sessions, focusing on the understanding and harmonization with NS/ NA IRB members, is necessary and would expand our society members’ potentials as both administrators and scientists.
DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2015.151029
|
