Which practice can effectively minimize group harms in research studies?

Collaborative IRB review is an effective practice to minimize group harms in research studies because it fosters communication and cooperation among Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) from different organizations. This collaboration helps ensure that the ethical standards and protections for research participants are consistently upheld across studies, particularly when research involves diverse populations or multi-site projects. By bringing together various perspectives, collaborative review can enhance the understanding of potential risks and vulnerabilities faced by groups involved in research, leading to better-informed decisions that prioritize participant safety and welfare.

This approach also encourages shared knowledge and practices regarding ethical oversight, which can lead to more comprehensive protections for all participants involved in a study. In contrast, restricting access to research findings may hinder transparency and accountability, limiting the ability of communities to learn from and critique research that affects them. Limiting community involvement dismisses the valuable insights and feedback that communities can provide, which are essential for addressing their needs and concerns. Conducting studies in isolation may lead to a lack of oversight and an insular view of ethical considerations, increasing the risk of potential harms to groups being studied. Therefore, collaborative IRB review stands out as the most effective method for minimizing group harms in research.