Many IRBs Lack Policies on Conflicts of Interest

One-quarter of the institutional review boards (IRBs) that oversee clinical research at medical schools have no written policy on potential conflicts of interest among members, and only one in five systematically collects information about members' potential conflicts of interest, according to a recent study.

Larger institutions are more likely to have written policies, but overall there was "substantial variation across IRBs," according to study author Leslie Wolf of the Committee on Human Research and the Program in Medical Ethics at the University of California, San Francisco. The study, which was presented last month at a meeting of the HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, was based on a survey of 121 medical schools that receive NIH research funding.

All of the academic institutions that applied for accreditation with the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs had established policies and procedures on conflicts of interest among IRB members, Marjorie Speers, executive director of the association, said. Of those, 10 percent initially met the accreditation standard.

According to the study Wolf presented, 79 percent of the IRBs with written policies on conflicts of interest provide a definition of what these may consist of. Among these, 78 percent specify member involvement in the clinical trial (e.g., as the principal investigator or a consultant), 72 percent specify financial interests, 52 percent specify personal or professional relationships and 6 percent specify personal beliefs.