Revisions to the Common Rule and NIH policy require the use of a single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for the review of most federally funded, multisite research, with the intent of streamlining the review process. However, since initial implementation in 2018, many IRBs and institutions continue to struggle with the logistics of implementing this requirement. In this paper, we report the findings of a workshop held in 2022 to examine why sIRB review remains problematic and propose possible solutions. Workshop participants identified several issues as major barriers, including new responsibilities for study teams, persistent duplicative review processes, the lack of harmonization of policies and practices across institutions, the absence of additional guidance from federal agencies, and the need for greater flexibility in policy requirements. Addressing these problems will require providing additional resources and training to research teams, the commitment of institutional leaders to harmonize practice, and policymakers to critically evaluate the requirement and provide flexibility in applicability.

There is a long history of women being underrepresented in biomedical and health research. Specific women’s health needs have been, and in some cases still are, comparatively neglected areas of study. Concerns about the health and social impacts of such bias and exclusion have resulted in inclusion policies from governments, research funders, and the scientific establishment since the 1990s. Contemporary understandings of foregrounding sex and gender issues within biomedical research range from women’s rights to inclusion, to links between human rights, women’s health and sustainable development, and the increasing scientific and funding expectation for studies to consider the sex (biological) and gender (cultural) implications of research design, results and impact. However, there are also exploitation issues to consider when foregrounding the inclusion of women as research participants, especially for research ethics committees and institutional review boards. A hidden risk is that exploitative research designs and practices may be missed, particularly by reviewers who may not have a nuanced understanding of gender-based harm. Utilizing contemporary case studies of ethics dumping, this paper highlights some of the concerns, and makes recommendations for IRBs/research ethics reviewers to help ensure that essential research is undertaken to the highest ethical standards.

Single institutional review board (IRB) review of multisite research increased in frequency over a decade ago with a proliferation of master IRB reliance agreements supporting statewide and regional consortia and disease- and population-specific networks. Although successful, the increasing number of agreements presented significant challenges and illuminated potential benefits of a single, nationwide agreement. Anticipated changes in federal regulations highlighted the need to systematize and simplify IRB reliance. To address these challenges, the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences funded a project to establish a national IRB reliance network that would support national adoption of single IRB (sIRB) review. The Streamlined, Multisite, Accelerated Resources for Trials (SMART) IRB Platform launched in July 2016 to facilitate dissemination, adoption, and implementation of a collaboratively developed master IRB reliance agreement and supportive tools and resources. More than 580 institutions have joined SMART IRB’s Master Common Reciprocal Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreement and begun using the SMART IRB platform to support sIRB arrangements. Here, we describe the tenets of the agreement and operational benefits and challenges of its use. SMART IRB’s early success affirms the utility of collaborative, flexible, and centralized approaches to supporting sIRB review while highlighting the need for further national harmonization.

This article discusses the establishment of a governance framework for biomedical research in Singapore. It focuses on the work of the Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC), which has been instrumental in institutionalizing a governance framework, through the provision of recommendations to the government, and through the coordination of efforts among government agencies. However, developing capabilities in biomedical sciences presents challenges that are qualitatively different from those of past technologies. The state has a greater role to play in balancing conflicting and potentially irreconcilable economic, social, and political goals. This article analyzes the various ways by which the BAC has facilitated this.

Under the current US Department of Health and Human Services regulatory and ethical system for research involving human subjects, research is defined in terms of several key concepts: intent, systematic investigation, and generalizability. If an investigator engages in a systematic investigation designed or intended to contribute to generalizable knowledge, then he or she is engaged in research. If that research involves living individuals and the investigator will either interact or intervene with people or obtain their identifiable personal information, then the research must be prospectively reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB), a federally mandated committee that ensures the ethical and regulatory appropriateness of proposed research. In public health institutions, and especially at state departments of health, this definition of research may prove vexing for determining when particular public health activities must be reviewed by IRBs. This article outlines several reasons for such vexation and 2 key responses from major public health stakeholders. In the current climate of public health preparedness initiatives at state health departments for disasters and bioterrorism, how research is defined vis-à-vis public health interventions may add even more confusion to preparedness initiatives and pose difficulties in determining when IRB review and the added protections it affords are appropriate. This article suggests several practical ways to avoid confusion and attempts to strike a balance between the need for expeditious approvals of research-based responses to public health disasters and to ensure proper protections for human subjects at state health departments. It is hoped that these suggestions can assist not only state health departments but also academically based researchers who either collaborate with those departments or whose research will need to be reviewed by their IRBs. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:185–191)