Daniel Webster College
Institutional Review Board

Daniel Webster College subscribes to the highest ethical principles governing experimentation involving human and animal subjects.  All research activities that fall under the purview of Federal and State law requiring review are reviewed by the Daniel Webster College Institutional Review Board.

The Code of Federal Regulations (Title 45 CFR) defines research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or to contribute to generalizable knowledge.” Activities that meet this definition constitute research for purposes of this policy, whether or not they are conducted or supported under a program that is considered research for other purposes.

You are urged to review the policy if you or your students are doing any research (including questionnaires). All research involving the use of human subjects must be submitted for review to the IRB unless exempt. (Anonymous questionnaires, such as end of semester student evaluations, are not subject to review by the IRB.) Final determination of status (exempt, expedited, or subject to full review) is made by the IRB.

The Belmont Report defines research as any activity designed to test an hypothesis, permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge (expressed, for example, in theories, principles, and statements of relationships). The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines research as studious inquiry or examination; especially an investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws.

The application has three components: 1) a cover sheet, 2) ten items that must be completed as the application, and 3) a check list to determine the level of review done by the Board. Submit the completed application to Carol Lerch, lerch@dwc.edu , Chair of the IRB.

There is PowerPoint slide show that explains the issues involved in research with human subjects. The presentation takes about fifteen minutes to complete.

It is highly recommended that researchers take part in one of the certification processes listed below. It is also highly recommended for those teaching research courses.

The Office of Human Subjects Research and the National Institutes of Health provide training for researchers. There is a great deal of information that will be helpful in preparing the IRB application.

The National Cancer Institute provides a certification course. This free, web-based course presents information about the rights and welfare of human participants in research. The two-hour tutorial is designed for those involved in conducting research involving human participants.

There is a great deal of history concerning research on human subjects. The WWII medical experiments performed on prisoners are well documented. These experiments led to the Nuremberg Code which requires that participation is voluntary, that participants have the ability to understand the ramifications of their role in the research and that there be a minimization of the harms and risks of the research. The participants are also guaranteed the right to withdraw at any time from the study.

The Tuskegee study involved medical research on black male patients who had syphilis. The effects of their illness were tracked over the course of forty years. Treatment was not provided – when penicillin was identified as a medicine to combat the disease, the subjects were not given any nor were they informed of its use. The long-term ramifications of this study, still present today, include the wariness of African Americans to participate in medical research.

The Milgram experiment involved obedience to authority. In response to a newspaper ad an individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."