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 – ‘Interventional’ Clinical Trial vs Non-Interventional Study
RWE 101 - 'Interventional' Clinical Trial vs Non-Interventional Study Interventional Clinical Trial: In this type of study, researchers actively intervene by assigning participants to different groups, administering specific treatments, [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Are the terms ‘clinical study’ and ‘clinical trial’ synonymous in the context of non-interventional studies?
RWE 101 - Are the terms 'clinical study' and 'clinical trial' synonymous in the context of non-interventional studies? No, "clinical study" and "clinical trial" are not necessarily synonymous in [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – The Importance of Regulatory Definitions
RWE 101 - The Importance of Regulatory Definitions "Words are powerful"Regulatory definitions are important in the context of real-world evidence (RWE) studies and real-world research for several reasons:[1] Consistency: [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Regulatory Compliance
RWE 101 - Regulatory Compliance Regulatory compliance in the context of real-world evidence (RWE) refers to ensuring that the generation and use of RWE for regulatory purposes [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Regulatory Intelligence
RWE 101 - Regulatory Intelligence In the context of real-world evidence (RWE) and real-world research (RWR), regulatory intelligence refers to the process of gathering, analyzing, and interpreting regulatory information [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Regulatory Science
RWE 101 - Regulatory Science Regulatory science is a field of study that involves the application of scientific methods, principles, and data to the development and evaluation of regulatory [...]







