For many years, the social, behavioral, and educational research (SBER) community has worked within a regulatory framework originally built to oversee biomedical research. While much of that framework certainly applies to SBER oversight, there are nuances, and outright differences, which make one size not fit all.
As many know, the Common Rule may be on the verge of being revised. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), upon which any new rule would be based, offered some significant changes to the exempt and excluded categories. Additionally, changes are proposed to how minimal risk research will be defined. Since these changes, if encoded in a new rule, could fundamentally change how SBER research is reviewed and overseen, we felt now was the time to launch an SBER Network.
We propose building a network of SBER human research protection programs (HRPPs) across the US and internationally where these groups can discuss SBER-specific issues, serve as a resource, develop guidelines and standards for human subjects research oversight, and provide a collective voice in the larger human subjects research ethics community. We hope that this network will help members derive creative solutions in real time.
PRIM&R has agreed to help this effort by setting aside space for us to meet at the 2016 Advancing Ethical Research (AER16) Conference. If you’re interested in being a part of that gathering, please contact us directly at petreel@unm.edu. We hope you’ll join us in Anaheim for a discussion about the future of SBER and human subjects research.
Ready to join the Network? Fill out this brief form to let us know. If you have any questions, please direct them to sber@primr.org.
Linda Petree, BA, CIP currently serves as Director of the University of New Mexico’s Human Research Protections Program in Albuquerque, NM and has been a CIP since 2005. She has also conducted and published research in the area of research ethics, specific to the return of incidental findings.
Cecilia Brooke Cholka, MA, CIP is a Senior IRB Analyst for the Office of the IRB at the University of New Mexico. She has 10 years SBER research experience and 3 years IRB administration experience.
Pingback: A New SBER Network: An Invitation to Participate - Bioethics Research Library
There doesn’t appear to be a link to the survey from this post. It would be helpful if there were. In case it’s a browser issue, I’m using Chrome, Version 53.0.2785.116 (64-bit). For others who might be interested but unable to find a link, the survey link I received via email is http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/3017946/SBER-Network-Survey
Thank you, Laura. The link has been added.
Excellent idea, so much needed. I’ll gladly will help in any capacity I can !!
Hi Ximena. Thank you for your interest in the SBER Network! Please email me at petreel@unm.edu with your contact information and we’ll make sure you are on our list.
This is a long awaited and most welcome development. I am interesting in joining the group.
Hi Farirai. Please email me at petreel@unm.edu for more info about the SBER Network! Thank you!
I am pleased for a greater SBER presence in PRIM&R. Though I can not attend the conference this year, I will be happy to be a part of and pay attention to an SBER network.
Hi Jami and thank you for your interest in the SBER Network! Please send your contact information to petreel@unm.edu and we’ll make sure you are included in the network communications.
Great initiative!
I’m from Chile and we are working a lot on SBE issues
I’ll be happy to participate in any discusión, conversation, analysis….
I’m not Hong to Annaheim this year
This has been needed for a long time. We have a local SBR networking group but a national group will be a great resource. I cannot attend AER16 but would be happy to help in any way.
This will be an excellent resource. Count me in. I plan to be at the November meeting.
A colleague in Australia and I were discussing your initiative of yours. There is a large group of scholars who have contributed insights about research-ethics review–some critical, some analytical, some experiential. Is there a benefit to having these scholars join this blog? Together, these scholars have produced ca 350 articles about research-ethics review. Obviously, some are not believers in research-ethics review, but still offer interesting insights. Others fall closer to the range of believers. It is useful to have their writings on your blog? Some point, we should pull together out resources to create a group of “reflexive thinkers about the ethics-review process.” Of course, thinkers are reflexive in any case, but something to convey the growing rich literature that reflects new approaches to research-ethics review.