The University's Research Advisory Board is looking to reform stringent research procedures that currently slow undergraduate research on human subjects.
The board, composed of faculty members who counsel Vice President for Research Clyde Briant, has created a subcommittee to reform the Institutional Review Board's stringent procedures and streamline the approval process for these projects.
"The current standards seem to be fine," said Kenneth Wong, chair of the Department of Education and chair of the subcommittee. "But we are changing the current support that makes the students deal with those standards more efficiently."
The subcommittee's new recommendations, which have been submitted to the Faculty Executive Committee for input, will take effect by the end of the semester or early in the summer, Wong said.
In reviewing the IRB's current procedures, Wong said the subcommittee looked at the University's peer institutions, such as Princeton and the University of Chicago, in order to gain perspective on the different possible levels of restriction.
"Brown is kind of in the middle," he said. "I think what we have here is good. But it does put a lot of burden - or flexibility, depending on how you look at it - on the faculty advisory."
The federal government began to require universities to pay particular attention to research conducted by undergraduates because there were frequent lapses in the treatment of subjects when student authors would inadvertently identify subjects by name - a violation permissible only if the person reading the report is the overseeing faculty. But issues arise when this knowledge is shared with a broader audience than the professors, Wong said.
Many of these projects, which frequently involve non-invasive procedures such as filling out surveys or observing computer simulations, still require specific protocols outlined by the IRB in order to ensure the protection of all participants in the studies, especially children.
"They want to make sure no harms are done to the kids, and that the parents are fully informed," Wong said of the IRB's strict policy for these cases.
A Research Protections Office chart from Jan. 14 identified eight human research protocols that were undergraduate projects in the social sciences last year, out of a total of 17. Such a high percentage - life sciences had five protocols in undergraduate projects in 2008 - reflects the IRB's "unevenness," Wong said.
The current process for approval, which involves submitting detailed proposals and explaining the recruitment process for participants, can take "eons," said Rachel Ostrand '09, who is conducting research involving speech comparison in the Department of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences. While running a survey during her study last year, she wanted to switch to a different hosting Web site for her research. The change took a week and a half to gain approval from the IRB, she said.
Such a slow turnaround, Wong said, is what the subcommittee is trying to avoid by streamlining the IRB's review process.
Wong said the committee is encouraging stronger faculty support for undergraduates, especially seniors working on theses. By advocating for more information sessions run through relevant departments and the Office of the Dean of the College, Wong said he hopes students will receive more advice on how to proceed earlier with their intended projects in order to save time in the IRB's approval process.
He said starting projects early would reduce problems and anxiety for students attempting to gain approval for their research, which often carries time constraints as a result of the University's schedule. The committee is also advocating for a section on the RPO's Web site that shares protocols so students can "identify these templates" for possible situations, such as those involving parental consent for minors.
"I think this is a problem that can be solved," Wong said. "We just need better coordination."
But the process, despite the current frustration, is not merely a "painful hurdle," said Professor of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences Sheila Blumstein.
"Ethics is as much a part of research as research itself," Blumstein said. "The history of humanity has not been very good in testing people."
"Going through the process is really important because people need to understand when you're working with any subject, they have rights," Blumstein said. Students must "never forget that they're dealing with human beings."
