During an Institutional Review Board (IRB) meeting, a member who has a potential conflict of interest should do what?

In situations involving an Institutional Review Board (IRB), it is crucial to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the review process. When a member has a potential conflict of interest, recusal from discussions and voting is the appropriate course of action. This ensures that decisions made by the IRB are free from any bias that could arise due to a personal interest or financial stake that the member may have in the research being reviewed.

Recusal not only prevents the possibility of influencing the outcome but also enhances the credibility of the IRB's decisions. It upholds ethical standards by prioritizing the welfare of research subjects and the integrity of the research process over the interests of individual board members. This practice aligns with federal regulations and ethical guidelines meant to protect participant safety and rights.

Options suggesting that the member can still vote or only disclose the conflict when asked would compromise the ethical integrity of the review process. Transparent disclosure is important, but taking part in discussions or decisions in the presence of a conflict of interest undermines the responsibilities of the IRB.