SMU Institutional Review Board - The 2nd IRB Briefing to the SMU Community in 2016 was conducted on 29 September by the IRB Chair, Professor Don Ferrin. He introduced a slide indicating the members of the IRB and explained the Principles of the Belmont Report, with some examples of past research studies. He also emphasised that having the research protocols reviewed by the IRB would protect the interests of the researchers and institution, the safety, welfare and rights of the research participants, and help to advance scientific and academic knowledge in an ethical way.

 

He further defined what constituted human participant research and also briefly discussed the requirements of IRB approval for collection of new data, and use of existing data and publicly available data. On the use of publicly available data, the Vice Provost (Research), Professor Steven Miller, who was also present at the briefing, highlighted that such data might be made publicly available via unauthorised, illegal, or ethically-questionable means. Therefore, researchers should be careful when using such data for research; if they have any doubt, they should contact the SMU IRB.

 

Prof Ferrin then explained the different IRB review categories, the IRB review process, the requirements of informed consent and Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) training, and the core criteria for IRB approval. In addition, he shared with the audience the recent launch of the new or revised IRB forms, such as the IRB application form, supervisor declaration form, informed consent form templates (hardcopy/online/verbal) and boilerplate informed consent forms (surveys, lab experiments, interviews, and focus groups). Prof. Ferrin also briefed the audience on SMU IRB’s review philosophy, the number of IRB applications reviewed each year, the turnaround times, and the updated IRB guidelines on debriefing and the collection of data outside Singapore. He then shared some of the new FAQs and explained the conditions under which one would vs. would not need to obtain IRB approval for changes to the protocols (substantive versus minor changes), for collection of corporate data (individual’s perceptions, opinions, views, etc. of companies’ information versus entirely factual data on companies), and for case studies (case studies conducted for research purposes versus case studies conducted for pedagogical purposes).

 

During the briefing, Prof Ferrin addressed some questions from the audience such as the definition of private information, the allocation of the IRB applications to the different IRB reviewers, and the validity of informed consent under certain circumstances. He also informed the audience that SMU IRB will soon be embarking on an accreditation programme and presented slides on the purpose and benefits of the accreditation as well as the accreditation standards and process. He concluded the briefing by asking the audience to contact the SMU IRB at irb [at] smu.edu.sg if they have any questions or feedback on the IRB policies, procedures, forms and intranet. The next IRB briefing will be conducted in March 2017.

 

Back to Research@SMU Issue 41