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 – HIPAA
RWE 101 - HIPAA HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), enacted in 1996, is a federal law in the United States that establishes regulations for the protection of [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – The Common Rule
RWE 101 - The Common Rule The Common Rule plays a significant role in the governance of observational studies. The Common Rule refers to a set of regulations and [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (the reason we have the Belmont Report and the Common Rule)
RWE 101 - The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (the reason we have the Belmont Report and the Common Rule) The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, conducted from 1932 to 1972, stands as [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Observational Study vs Non-Interventional Study
RWE 101 - Observational Study vs Non-Interventional Study In the context of real-world evidence (RWE), the terms "observational study" and "non-interventional study" are often used interchangeably to refer to [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Are Non-Interventional Studies Regulated?
RWE 101 - Are Non-Interventional Studies Regulated? Yes, non-interventional studies (NIS) are regulated. While the specific regulations and requirements may vary by country, there are generally guidelines and provisions [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Postmarket Requirements (PMR) vs Post-Authorisation Safety Studies (PASS)
RWE 101 - Postmarket Requirements (PMR) vs Post-Authorisation Safety Studies (PASS) In the context of real-world evidence (RWE) and regulatory frameworks, postmarket requirements (PMRs) and post-authorization safety studies (PASS) [...]







