Discussion of the University’s IRB (Institutional Review Board) Policy.
Kantner: We are seeking suggestions on how to make the policy more clear.
Goel: Who is the policy under?
Kantner: Academic Affairs, OSRP would enforce the policy.
Dinsmore: The infractions will be the tricky part. What is the IRB/Administration role in enforcing violations? Sounds as though IRB can determine necessary actions. Faculty under CBA.
Kantner: The authority of IRB needs to be better defined. Also, we will need a separate policy from OSRP. IRB is separate from the institution.
Wilson & Churilla: Explain possible infractions.
Group: Discussion of effectiveness of IRB, mostly road blocks for minor infractions.
Churilla: What about improvements on multi-level of collaborations across the institutions.
Kantner: We are doing more to improve that process. Agreements are forming with external research organizations.
Scheirer: Suggested a change in language because the current policy is vague on infractions.
Group: Discussion concerning misconduct.
Kantner: IRB is not an administrative unit.
Dinsmore: Who determines additional corrective actions?
Scheirer: IRB would go to Faculty Affairs; next step not clear.
Kantner: It is not the intention to give IRB administrative power. IRB can make recommendations, but not the decision. The wording will be amended to reflect that.
Group: Agrees on the importance of the policy.