What is one possible outcome of an IRB review?

One possible outcome of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) review is that the research project is considered exempt from further review. This means that the IRB has determined that the research meets specific criteria outlined by federal regulations, allowing it to proceed without the need for ongoing oversight typically required for studies involving human subjects.

Such exemptions are generally given to studies that involve minimal risk to participants, such as research on educational practices or surveys that do not reveal personal identifiers. The IRB's role is to ensure the protection of participants' rights and welfare, and when a project qualifies for exemption, it reflects that the proposed research aligns with ethical guidelines set forth in the Belmont Report, ensuring that participant risks are minimized and their autonomy is respected without necessitating extensive oversight.

The other options do not represent valid outcomes of an IRB review based on the established norms and procedures. For example, IRBs are not in the position to guarantee full approval, as all research projects must undergo thorough review to ensure ethical standards are met before any research can commence. Similarly, no research is deemed able to start without review, as this would bypass essential safeguards for participant rights, and consent is generally necessary to uphold ethical standards unless explicitly exempted by criteria established by the IRB