During an IRB meeting, how should a member handle a potential conflict of interest?

Handling a potential conflict of interest during an Institutional Review Board (IRB) meeting requires transparency and ethical consideration. The correct action is to disclose any potential conflicts and address questions from other committee members before recusing oneself from the voting process. This approach ensures that the other IRB members are fully informed about the conflict, allowing them to evaluate the situation and determine if any additional action is necessary.

The process of disclosing the conflict serves several important purposes: it maintains the integrity of the review process, promotes a culture of openness within the committee, and protects the rights of research participants by ensuring that decisions are made without undue influence. By addressing questions prior to recusal, the member contributes to the discussion and helps clarify any concerns, facilitating a better-informed decision-making process for the IRB.

In contrast, simply ignoring the conflict could compromise the integrity of the review and raise ethical concerns. Recusing oneself from the entire meeting without disclosure might prevent valuable insights related to the member's expertise from being contributed, and voting while acknowledging a conflict can create confusion and challenge the validity of the decision since the conflict could unduly influence the outcome. Hence, the best practice combines transparency and active engagement before stepping back from the voting process.