An Institutional Review Board (IRB) and a Research Ethics Committee (REC) are two different types of bodies that are responsible for ensuring that research involving human subjects is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. While the terms are often used interchangeably, there are some differences between an IRB and a REC.
In the United States, an IRB is a committee that is established by an institution, such as a university or hospital, to review and approve research protocols that involve human subjects. The IRB is responsible for ensuring that the study is designed and conducted in an ethical manner, that the risks to participants are minimized, and that the potential benefits of the study outweigh any potential harms. The IRB also monitors ongoing studies to ensure that they continue to meet ethical and safety standards.
In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, a Research Ethics Committee (REC) may have a similar role to an IRB. RECs are independent committees that review research proposals to ensure that they meet ethical and legal requirements, and that they are designed in a way that respects the rights and welfare of human participants. RECs may also provide ongoing monitoring and review of ongoing studies.
While there are some differences in the way that IRBs and RECs are structured and operate, their overall purpose is the same: to ensure that research involving human subjects is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. Both IRBs and RECs may require researchers to submit detailed study protocols and obtain informed consent from study participants, and both may monitor ongoing studies to ensure that they continue to meet ethical and safety standards.
Share this story...
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – ICH GCP (R3) – Real World Evidence Context
RWE 101 - ICH GCP (R3) - Real World Evidence Context Revision 2 of ICH GCP caused confusion to those of us who work with non-interventional studies. The glossary [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Non-Interventional Studies vs Market Health Research
RWE 101 - Non-Interventional Studies vs Market Health Research Key differences between a non-interventional study (NIS) and market health research include:1. Research Objective: NIS are conducted to examine real-world [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Audits vs Inspections
RWE 101 - Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 - Audits vs Inspections In the context of regulatory compliance for Real-World Evidence (RWE), both audits and inspections play crucial roles, [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – A Career of Many Pathways
RWE 101 - A Career of Many Pathways Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to the information on health care that is derived from analysis of real-world data (RWD). RWE [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Evolution of Regulatory Affairs
RWE 101 - Evolution of Regulatory Affairs Real-world evidence (RWE) and real-world data (RWD) are increasingly influencing regulatory affairs in the biopharmaceutical and healthcare industry. This change has been [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Project Managers
RWE 101 - Project Managers Real-World Evidence (RWE) observational studies and clinical trials are both key elements of medical research, but they involve very different methodologies, aims, and requirements. [...]