The Illinois White Paper

  title={The Illinois White Paper},
  author={C. K. Gunsalus and Edward M. Bruner and Nicholas C. Burbules and Leon Decosta Dash and Matthew W. Finkin and Joseph P. Goldberg and William T. Greenough and Gregory A. Miller and Michael G. Pratt and Masumi Iriye and Deb Aronson},
  journal={Qualitative Inquiry},
  pages={617 - 649}
Our system of research self-regulation, designed to provide internal checks and balances for those who participate in research involving human subjects, is under considerable stress. Much of this crisis has been caused by what we call mission creep, in which the workload of IRBs has expanded beyond their ability to handle effectively. Mission creep is caused by rewarding wrong behaviors, such as focusing more on procedures and documentation than difficult ethical questions; unclear definitions… Expand
The need for reform of human subjects protections in military health research.
Concern is raised about significant resources committed to nonstudy interventions, some described as "training," which fall outside of IRB review and its human subject protections, and a broad initiative for evidenced-based research could become marginalized with limited resources redirected to technology-focused quick fixes and data collection during training. Expand
Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.
No mechanism currently exists at the national level to gather systematic evidence on the intersection between research and IRB review, and the evidence is too limited to allow for valid estimates of its magnitude or to serve as the basis for formulating policies on IRB reform. Expand
How Talking Became Human Subjects Research: The Federal Regulation of the Social Sciences, 1965–1991
In universities across the United States, institutional review boards, or IRBs, claim that they have the moral and legal authority to control the work of researchers in the humanities and socialExpand
Regulatory Innovation in the Governance of Human Subjects Research: A Cautionary Tale and Some Modest Proposals
Under U.S. regulations known as the Common Rule, federally-supported human-subject research must be reviewed by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The Common Rule system looks from a distance likeExpand
U. S. Health Researchers Review Their Ethics Review Boards: A Qualitative Study
  • S. Burris, K. Moss
  • Medicine
  • Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
  • 2006
Qualitative research on how investigators regard this regulatory regime in the United States suggests that efforts to raise researchers' ethical consciousness have been, over time, quite successful, but that implementation of the regulations remains problematic. Expand
Clinical research regulation: challenges to the institutional review board system.
This contribution outlines the current obstacles and critique of IRBs, providing a discussion of the structure of the IRB system and strategies to meet these challenges. Expand
Protecting Human Research Participants, IRBs, and Political Science Redux: Editor's Introduction
  • R. J. Hauck
  • Political Science
  • PS: Political Science & Politics
  • 2008
In the 1990s I testified before a National Science Foundation (NSF) panel headed by Cora Marrett, then assistant director for the NSF Directorate for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. TheExpand
Survey of U.S. Boards That Review Mental Health-Related Research
  • J. Catania, B. Lo, +5 authors J. Henne
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
  • 2008
The need for additional studies to examine if the number of mental health experts on IRBs should be increased particularly among IRBs reviewing a high volume of MHRAs and determine if the breadth of expertise corresponds to the range of substantive and methodological approaches represented by the mental health protocols under review is suggested. Expand
The Ethical Dilemma of Ethical Committees
The Nuremberg code, a response to the 1946 Nuremberg Medical Trials, was the first attempt to formally state ethical requirements for medical research. The Code was generally ignored as a response toExpand
Closing Loopholes in the Federal Research Regulations: Some Practical Problems
  • D. Resnik
  • Business, Medicine
  • The American journal of bioethics : AJOB
  • 2008
Shamoo and Schwartz (2008) argue that to protect the dignity, rights, and welfare of people who participate in research, the U. S. should close existing loopholes in the federal regulations.Expand


The Nanny State Meets the Inner Lawyer: Overregulating While Underprotecting Human Participants in Research
This article questions the purpose, feasibility, and effectiveness of current IRB approaches to most "2 people talking" situations and proposes scaling back the regulatory system to increase respect accorded it by researchers and its ability to protect human participants of research from real versus imagined harms. Expand
Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants
When 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger died in a gene transfer study at the University of Pennsylvania, the national spotlight focused on the procedures used to ensure research participantsa (TM) safetyExpand
Institutional Review Boards: A Crisis in Confidence
  • R. Levine
  • Medicine
  • Annals of Internal Medicine
  • 2001
The enormous increase in the number and complexity of multicentered randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is identified as the root cause of the crisis and the capabilities of IRBs to cope with contemporary problems, such as multicentering trials are concerned. Expand
Institutional Review Boards.
This letter is intended to place the Goldman and Katz study in the perspective of the correct time frame and to provide readers with current information on what is being done to assist institutional review boards (IRBs) in carrying out their "essential" mission. Expand
Human Subjects Protections, Institutional Review Boards, and Cultural Anthropological Research
  • P. Marshall
  • Sociology, Medicine
  • Anthropological quarterly
  • 2003
The Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP) plays an important role in the federal regulation of human research subjects' protections, including oversight of Institutional Review Boards. Expand
The National Research Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-348, 88 Stat. 342, July 12, 1974) established the human research protections system to ensure the rights of human participants in biomedical and behavioralExpand
Creative Nonfiction and the Academy: A Cautionary Tale
Since their inception, institutional review boards (IRBs), which use a biomedical model with which to evaluate cases, have continued to extend their reach, increasingly of late into the humanities.Expand
Building public trust: Actions to respond to the report of the Advisory Committee on human radiation experiments
Democratic government requires trust: people need to know and believe that the government is telling the truth. Without information about what the government is doing and why, citizens cannotExpand
The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards
Are federal regulations on Institutional Review Boards - commonly known as IRBs - compatible with the First Amendment? The regulations aim to protect human subjects by creating a system of licensingExpand
Registering clinical trials.
All stakeholders-investigators, research organizations and institutions, journal editors, lawmakers, consumers, and others-must act now, together and in their own domains, to ensure comprehensive registration of clinical trials. Expand