C.F.R. » Title 21 » CHAPTER I—FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 56—INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS › Subpart C—IRB Functions and Operations

21 C.F.R. § 56.111

Criteria for IRB approval of research

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In order to approve research covered by these regulations the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) Risks to subjects are minimized: (i) By using procedures which are consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and (ii) whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes.

(2) Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies that subjects would receive even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (for example, the possible effects of the research on public policy) as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility.

(3) Selection of subjects is equitable. In making this assessment the IRB should take into account the purposes of the research and the setting in which the research will be conducted and should be particularly cognizant of the special problems of research involving vulnerable populations, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, handicapped, or mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.

(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with and to the extent required by part 50.

(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented, in accordance with and to the extent required by § 50.27.

(6) Where appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.

(7) Where appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

(b) When some or all of the subjects, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, handicapped, or mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.

(c) In order to approve research in which some or all of the subjects are children, an IRB must determine that all research is in compliance with part 50, subpart D of this chapter.

[46 FR 8975, Jan. 27, 1981, as amended at 56 FR 28029, June 18, 1991; 66 FR 20599, Apr. 24, 2001]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1997–2006 · leading case: Femrite v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., 568 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Femrite v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., 568 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “42 (1996) (requiring IRB and FDA to approve application before clinical investigation commences); 21 C.F.R. § 56.111 (1997) (listing prerequisites for IRB approval, including informed consent of prospective subjects).”
Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “” 21 C.F.R. § 56.111 (a)(2). . The Appeals Council held in the alternative that, even in the absence of the 1986 Manual Provision, remand to the Administrative Law Judge for further consideration would be necessary because "[t]he record in these cases contains insufficient…”
Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006). “3(f) which must determine that the "[r]isks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits," 21 C.F.R. 56.111(a)(2). 14 48 No doubt, these inquiries are less exacting than the premarket approval process, which considers at least four factors in determining the…”
— 21 C.F.R. § 56.111(a)(2) — 2 cases
Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006). “” 21 C.F.R. § 56.111 (a)(2). . The Appeals Council held in the alternative that, even in the absence of the 1986 Manual Provision, remand to the Administrative Law Judge for further consideration would be necessary because "[t]he record in these cases contains insufficient…”
Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006). “3(f) which must determine that the "[r]isks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits," 21 C.F.R. 56.111(a)(2). 14 48 No doubt, these inquiries are less exacting than the premarket approval process, which considers at least four factors in determining the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.