Reply To My Peers

Reply to my peers


Peer 1

Some of the topics that were covered in the ethics course were unsettling, especially some of the trials that were performed back before The Belmont Report was released. The betrayal that those families must have felt is devastating. The Belmont Report identified three ethical principles that should be considered in research which includes respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (The Belmont Report, 1979). Ethics may be common sense to some people, but others may need guidance. The regulations that have been put into place regarding ethics are a great reminder, even for those who know what is right and what is wrong.

University of Florida Health is a large organization with multiple research study opportunities. They have four institutional review boards (IRB) that approve research to ensure the welfare and rights of participants are protected. The review board has their own forms and procedures and follows federal and state rules as well. The IRB website has a wealth of information including required training for those on the board, a link to report noncompliance, tracking submission, and their institution policies, guidelines, and guidance. They even offer a bootcamp for individuals who are just getting started in research programs. Even being employed there, I did not know the extent of their research department. The website does not have a list of current research, which would be a great piece of information. There are separate IRB committees depending on the type of study and location. One accepts from staff or students, one if for FDA regulated drugs or devices, and another for broad medical research. Each IRB has a chair person to contact and submit your study for review. Based on the website, it seems like the organization is welcoming and open to consider research studies as long as you submit the required information.

The Belmont Report (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and
guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.
Retrieved from

University of Florida Federalwide Assurance. Institutional Review Board. (n.d.).


Peer 2

Upon completion of the human protection of research participants course, it is beyond doubt that there are various new insights on research ethics that are worth highlighting. For instance, through the course, one is able to identify the events that shaped up the modern day research protection practices. Befitting examples of such events include the Nuremberg, Helsinki and Belmont declarations. Notwithstanding, the course also increased understanding of the origin and role played by the institutional review boards for the human protection of research participants.

At the current place of work, various mechanisms are in place for the protection of human research participants rights. A case in point is the existing internal institutional review board that looks into the research proposals before giving a clean bill for its execution in the setting. The composition of the IRB in this institution entails scientists and non-scientists who work together for the determination of the safety of the research to the human participants. The institution complies with best practices of the total number of members, which should be no less than 12. Also, the members are of different ethnic backgrounds so as to diversify viewpoints and prevent bias. Finally, the IRB in this institution consists of members not affiliated with the organization. Such a practice increases neutrality during the review process of the researches (Grady, 2015).

Based on these revelations, it is beyond question that this course has been of great importance to the identification of pertinent research ethics issues.


Grady C. (2015). Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges. Chest148(5), 1148-1155. doi:10.1378/chest.15-0706.