1108_Collocative.pdf
I came across this article in first clinical about trouble with recruiting community members. What intrigued me is that it was strange to find this being an issue with some IRBs and that people from the community (regardless of background) shy away from membership because they feel odd in between scientist and the people with the white coats... As opposed, our community members do stick around for long and what feels wrong about community members staying for long with IRBs is they tend to submit to the know-it-all decisions of the scientific members. My first understanding of community members is that they were meant to maintain the balance for the scientists and doctors who will tend to march with the science behind any clinical investigation. But with time members will just get accustomed to the methodology of research that they will not oppose anything with regard to conduct and will only concentrate on the consent being in the proper shape.
What makes an ideal community member?
How many should there be in an IRB - regardless of the regulations - to have an effective opinion of the community?
Should they stay for as long as the IRB exists?
and if I should question the IRB mamangement what is better for IRB: do we have the members shuffle from a pool of members to allow for decision making to be less routine and more of an active performance of protection of rights? what I was thinking here humans have a tendency to do things on pilot mode/relax and do it as a routine thing but if good performance is required, people should not be allowed to feel comfy with any environment - and certainly with IRB meetings...