IRB members and industry relationships

However, the researchers were concerned by the fact that 32% of respondents still did not know whether or not their IRB had a policy on conflicts, even though that number had dropped from 41% in the previous study.

The percentage of respondents who handled their conflicts of interest in an appropriate manner increased. Eighty percent of respondents with conflicts reported them to the IRB, up from 55% in the previous study.

And 68% of respondents said they always left the room when a protocol with which they had a conflict was being discussed, up from 38% in the previous study.

However, a quarter of respondents with conflicts indicated they had voted on protocols with which they had a conflict. While that was a drop from what was reported in the previous study, it was not statistically significant.

The percentage of respondents who felt that at least one protocol had been presented to their IRB in a biased fashion because of another member’s industry relationships dropped from 14% in the previous study to 8% in this study.

And when asked about the types of bias they perceived in the presentation—questions not included in the previous survey—8% of respondents reported a pro-industry bias, and 14% reported an anti-industry bias.

“The fact that we found any bias—either pro- or anti-industry—is an issue, since bias is antithetical to research and should be eliminated,” Dr Campbell said. “IRBs should address that issue, along with increasing efforts to educate their members about what constitutes a conflict of interest and the inappropriateness of voting on protocols with which they have a conflict.”