Skip to main content
The silent majority: who speaks at IRB meetings
Systems and Psychosocial Advances Research Center Publications and Presentations
  • Philip J. Candilis, University of Massachusetts Medical School
  • Charles W. Lidz, University of Massachusetts Medical School
  • Paul S. Appelbaum, Columbia University
  • Robert M. Arnold, University of Pittsburgh
  • William P. Gardner, University of Pittsburgh
  • Suzanne Myers, Harvard Medical School
  • Albert J. Grudzinskas, Jr., University of Massachusetts Medical School
  • Lorna J. Simon, University of Massachusetts Medical School
UMMS Affiliation
Department of Psychiatry
Publication Date
Document Type
Ethics Committees, Research
The practice of maintaining large Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) raises the question whether membership that extends much beyond the minimal regulatory requirements is necessary. Anecdotal data suggest that chairs and reviewers assigned for each protocol may make the greatest contributions to discussions, but to date there have been no systematic data describing how frequently anyone other than an assigned reviewer or the chair participates in protocol discussions. If "ancillary" participants rarely speak, then it is difficult to argue that these participants play an important role in IRB deliberations. We use data from a unique observational study of IRBs at major academic medical centers to examine this question.

IRB. 2012 Jul-Aug;34(4):15-20. Link to article on publisher's website

Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMed
Citation Information
Philip J. Candilis, Charles W. Lidz, Paul S. Appelbaum, Robert M. Arnold, et al.. "The silent majority: who speaks at IRB meetings" Vol. 34 Iss. 4 (2012) ISSN: 0193-7758 (Linking)
Available at: