The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
December 1995 (Volume 73)
Quarterly Article
Harold Edgar
David J. Rothman
Nov 5, 2024
Oct 30, 2024
Oct 23, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Over the past two decades, institutional review boards (IRBs) have transformed the conduct of clinical research, in the process protecting human subjects and setting an admirable standard for monitoring the ethics of science. Nevertheless, the very proliferation of these committees, in addition to changing the character and sponsorship of new research, suggests that a “one size fits all” approach to the governance of human experimentation may have outlived its usefulness. It may be time to remove the “I” from the IRB and create a system with greater national oversight. Whether such a change can be accomplished within the current political climate is debatable. But the need for such a shift is becoming increasingly apparent.
Author(s): Harold Edgar; David J. Rothman
Download the Article
Read on JSTOR
Volume 73, Issue 4 (pages 489–506) Published in 1995
