Examples of IRB-equivalent bodies in different countries

United States: The IRB system is governed by federal regulations, primarily under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The guiding principles come from the Belmont Report, which outlines respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

United Kingdom: The equivalent to the IRB is the Research Ethics Committee (REC). In the UK, these committees are governed by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and operate under ethical guidelines set by the National Health Service (NHS).

European Union: In the EU, research ethics are typically overseen by Ethics Committees (ECs). These committees operate under the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), ensuring the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects, especially when it comes to privacy and data protection.

Canada: Research Ethics Boards (REBs) are the equivalent of IRBs in Canada. They follow the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS 2), which is a set of guidelines for the ethical conduct of research involving humans.

Australia: In Australia, the equivalent body is the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). The HRECs operate under the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines.

Japan: Japan has Ethics Committees that operate under guidelines provided by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). These committees are responsible for ensuring the ethical treatment of human subjects in research.

India: The Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs) are similar to IRBs and are governed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and regulations from the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI).

Across most countries, ethical review processes are guided by a shared set of international principles designed to protect participants in research. These principles include the importance of informed consent, ensuring that participants fully understand the nature of the study and their involvement before agreeing to take part. Another key principle is risk minimization, where researchers are obligated to reduce potential harm to participants as much as possible. Confidentiality and privacy are also fundamental, ensuring that personal information is safeguarded and that participants’ identities remain protected. Lastly, fair participant selection is emphasized to prevent the exploitation or exclusion of vulnerable populations, ensuring equity in how research participants are chosen.

Conclusion

Ethical considerations for interviews are essential to ensuring fairness, transparency, and respect for participants and job candidates. Ethical interviewing practices, from obtaining informed consent to maintaining confidentiality, are fundamental to protecting the dignity and rights of all individuals involved in the interview process. For researchers, gaining IRB approval is necessary to ensure that ethical standards are upheld throughout the study. By adhering to ethical guidelines, interviewers can build trust, promote transparency, and make decisions that align with ethical practices and acceptable behaviour, benefiting both the researcher and the individuals involved.

References

Humphreys, Laud. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Aldine Publishing, 1970.