IRB and Research Regulatory Delays Within the Military Health System: Do They Really Matter? And If So,Why and for Whom?

Institutional review board (IRB) delays may hinder the successful completion of federally funded research in the U.S. military. When this happens, time-sensitive, mission-relevant questions go unanswered. Research participants face unnecessary burdens and risks if delays squeeze recruitment timelines, resulting in inadequate sample sizes for definitive analyses. More broadly, military members are exposed to untested or undertested interventions, implemented by well-intentioned leaders who bypass the research process altogether. To illustrate, we offer two case examples. We posit that IRB delays often appear in the service of managing institutional risk, rather than protecting research participants. Regulators may see more risk associated with moving quickly than risk related to delay, choosing to err on the side of bureaucracy. The authors of this article, all of whom are military-funded researchers, government stakeholders, and/or human subject protection experts, offer feasible recommendations to improve the IRB system and, ultimately, research within military, veteran, and civilian populations.     

The impact of career websites: what's the evidence?

ABSTRACT

Careers provision for young people in the UK is being re-formulated on the basis of a central role for career websites but this policy is based on unproven assumptions about their value. In this article we consider the use and impact of the two main career websites in Scotland on pupils' career management skills. We found that pupils at risk of not achieving positive post-school destinations were less likely to use the websites, as were minority ethnic pupils. Although similar in functions, the two websites differed in their effect: one had no impact while the other impacted on only one aspect of pupils' career management skills. Careers policy needs to be informed by more extensive research on career websites.