Premed · Premed · Medical Ethics Humanities
Lecture 18: IRBs, Vulnerable Populations, and Consent in Research
Foundations of Medical Ethics and the Health Humanities
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lecture, students will be able to:
- Explain the structure, function, and authority of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
- Describe the categories of research review (exempt, expedited, full) and criteria for approval
- Identify vulnerable populations in research and the additional protections they require
- Analyze the challenges of obtaining meaningful informed consent in research settings
- Evaluate the strengths and limitations of the current research ethics oversight system
Lecture Content
I. The Institutional Review Board (IRB)
The IRB system originated with the National Research Act of 1974, passed in direct response to the revelations about the Tuskegee syphilis study. The Act required the establishment of IRBs at all institutions receiving federal research funding, a requirement subsequently codified in the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, 1991; revised 2018).
The function of an IRB is to review and oversee research involving human subjects to ensure it is ethical. IRBs review research protocols before they begin, conduct ongoing monitoring during studies, and have the authority to approve, require modifications, or disapprove research.
IRB composition requires at least five members with varying backgrounds. At least one member must have primarily scientific concerns, at least one must have primarily non-scientific concerns (such as an ethicist, lawyer, or community member), and at least one must be unaffiliated with the institution. Diversity in gender, race, and cultural background is encouraged.
The criteria for IRB approval under the Common Rule (45 CFR 46.111) require that risks are minimized and reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, that selection of subjects is equitable, that informed consent is sought and documented, that adequate provisions exist for monitoring data and safety, that privacy and confidentiality are protected, and that additional safeguards are in place for vulnerable populations.
II. Categories of Review
Research is classified into three categories of review based on risk level. Exempt review applies to research involving minimal risk that fits predefined categories, such as anonymous surveys, use of existing de-identified data, or educational research. Exempt research does not require full IRB review but still requires an institutional determination of exemption.
Expedited review applies to research involving no more than minimal risk that fits predefined categories, such as blood draws within standard limits, use of existing specimens, or non-invasive data collection. This review is conducted by the IRB chair or a designated member rather than the full board.
Full board review is required for research involving greater than minimal risk. It requires review by the convened IRB with a quorum present and applies to most clinical trials, interventional studies, and research involving vulnerable populations.
III. Informed Consent in Research
Informed consent in research differs from informed consent in clinical care in a crucial way: in research, the primary goal is to generate knowledge, not necessarily to benefit the individual participant. Participants must understand this distinction. The "therapeutic misconception," in which subjects believe the research is designed primarily to benefit them personally, is a major and persistent problem.
The Common Rule specifies required elements of research informed consent. These include a statement that the study involves research, along with an explanation of purpose, duration, and procedures; a description of reasonably foreseeable risks and discomforts; a description of potential benefits to the subject or others; disclosure of alternative treatments or procedures; a description of confidentiality protections; for more than minimal risk research, an explanation of compensation and medical treatment available for injury; contact information for questions and concerns; and a statement that participation is voluntary and can be withdrawn at any time without penalty.
Beyond the form, consent should be understood as an ongoing process of dialogue rather than a one-time event. Understanding should be assessed through teach-back, quizzes, or structured discussions. Sufficient time for deliberation must be allowed, and pressure or time constraints should be avoided. Re-consent is necessary when significant new information arises or protocol changes occur.

IV. Vulnerable Populations
Vulnerable populations are groups whose ability to protect their own interests is compromised, making them susceptible to undue influence, coercion, or exploitation in research. Several specific groups receive additional protections.
Children (governed by Subpart D of the Common Rule) cannot provide legal consent, so parental or guardian permission is required along with the child's assent when developmentally appropriate. Research involving children must be categorized by risk level and potential for direct benefit. Minimal risk research is permissible with permission and assent. Greater than minimal risk research with prospect of direct benefit is permissible if the benefit justifies the risk. Greater than minimal risk research without direct benefit is permissible only if it involves a minimal increase over minimal risk and is likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the child's condition.
Prisoners (governed by Subpart C) were historically exploited in research, including prison-based drug testing and radiation experiments. Special restrictions now apply: research must be relevant to prisoners as a class, a prisoner representative must serve on the IRB, and additional review is required for research that is more than minimal risk.
Pregnant women, human fetuses, and neonates (governed by Subpart B) receive protection through requirements to minimize risk to the fetus, to conduct preclinical studies demonstrating safety before human enrollment, and to obtain both maternal and, where applicable, paternal consent.
Persons with impaired decision-making capacity, such as those with dementia, intellectual disability, or acute mental illness, may be unable to consent. A legally authorized representative (LAR) may provide consent, and the subject's assent should be sought when possible. Research should be directly relevant to the subject's condition.
Economically or educationally disadvantaged persons may be influenced by financial incentives or lack understanding of research procedures. IRBs must ensure consent is truly voluntary and informed.
Indigenous communities have experienced historical exploitation and face ongoing concerns about data sovereignty, cultural sensitivity, and community consent. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) models involve the community as partners in research design, conduct, and dissemination.
V. Special Topics in Research Ethics
Randomization and equipoise are foundational to randomized controlled trials. Clinical equipoise requires genuine uncertainty among the expert community about which treatment is superior. If equipoise is absent -- if one treatment is clearly better -- randomization is unethical. Subjects must understand they may receive a placebo or an alternative treatment.
Data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) are independent committees that monitor trial data during the study. They have the authority to recommend stopping a trial early if one treatment is clearly superior (stopping for benefit), if one treatment is causing unacceptable harm (stopping for harm), or if the trial is unlikely to reach a conclusion (stopping for futility).
Deception in research, sometimes used in psychology and behavioral studies when disclosure would invalidate results, must be justified by demonstrating that no alternative design is feasible, that the research has significant value, and that risks are minimal. Debriefing must occur after participation, explaining the deception and allowing the subject to withdraw their data.
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) involves community members as equal partners in all phases of research. It is particularly important for Indigenous communities and marginalized groups and operates on principles of co-ownership of data, shared decision-making, community benefit, and cultural respect.

VI. Critiques of the IRB System
The IRB system faces several criticisms. Bureaucracy can make the review process slow, burdensome, and disproportionate to actual risk, especially for minimal-risk social science research. Inconsistency means that different IRBs may reach different conclusions about the same protocol. Mission creep occurs when IRBs expand beyond their ethical mandate into methodological review. Under-protection may result in some areas, as IRBs may not adequately address systemic issues like community exploitation, data sovereignty, or post-trial access. Over-reliance on consent forms can substitute paperwork for genuine ethical engagement. The 2018 Common Rule revision aimed to reduce burden on minimal-risk research while strengthening protections where they matter most.
