As a former IRB chair I would say this is a completely unnecessary
procedure. I pity the board members who will have to read all the
additional proposals. And what if they don't like it? I would also
grumble...grumble....
Annette
Quoting Gerald Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Speaking of some questionable IRB policies...Ours is working on a
policy manual (not yet adopted) that would require IRB approval at
my institution if I was second or third author, but did not run
subjects here. I have no problem with such review if I am using
subjects locally as part of a larger study, but if I am working on
write-up, or method/stats help, and the study has already been
approved at the first author's institution (where it is
implemented), I fail to see why I must also have it reviewed by my
IRB. I am wondering if others have such/similar IRB policies? If I
use my office computer to help with data analysis and contribute as
second or third or fourth author, does that make my university an
IRB player? I think the policy will ultimately reflect good sense,
but right now I grumble, grumble...Gary
Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
989-964-4491
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor of Psychology
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
619-260-4006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
