The potential for actual or perceived conflicts of interest is always a concern in carrying out, reporting, and reviewing research. As reviewers, we have to be careful not to get involved in study reviews when a conflict exists. UAMS IRB Policy 3.3 spells out the various kinds of conflicts that need to be managed in IRB study reviews. Conflicts can stem from either financial or non-financial interests on the part of the reviewer or of the reviewer’s immediate family in the research or the entity sponsoring the research. Financial interests include ownership of or stock options in, compensation from, or a board or executive relationship with a company that sponsors research. Non-financial interests arise when a reviewer is involved in the design, conduct, or reporting of the research study, or had interactions with the study team that would make it difficult for him/her to review the study in an unbiased manner, even if they are not named as study staff.
A recent Wall Street Journal blog entry reported recent research findings about the extent of financial conflicts of interest among IRB members. The item, citing a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, notes that progress has been made in the reporting and management of such conflicts, but concerns remain. Conflicts of interest have long been a concern for our accrediting body, the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP). And with UAMS’ AAHRPP reaccreditation process looming, we can expect our handling of IRB-related conflicts of interest to remain under close scrutiny.
If you have been assigned to review a study on which you have a conflict, please let the IRB chair and/or office know immediately, so the study can be assigned to a different reviewer before the meeting. If you have a conflict on an agenda item reviewed by somebody else, you will be asked to leave the IRB meeting during the discussion and voting on that item. Note that while the IRB staff and chair will try to identify conflicts as they arise, it is ultimately the reviewers’ responsibility to disclose all conflicts.