Hybrid design, systemic rigidity: Institutional dynamics in human research oversight

New governance scholars see hybrid regulation as a means for achieving regulatory flexibility and responsiveness. The US system for overseeing human subjects research embodies three dimensions of hybridity: it brings together governmental and non-governmental controls; it combines central and local authority; and it engages a multiplicity of policy actors. Yet this system became rigid 20 years into its development. Sources of rigidity included shifts in the regulatory environment, temporal constriction in the range policy participants, and risk aversion on the part of non-governmental institutions charged with implementing federally mandated controls. This article explores the implications of these institutional dynamics for the relationship between hybridity and regulatory responsiveness. It also examines possibilities for renewed flexibility generated by the recent advent of both accreditation and regulatory innovation by university research administrators.

[1]  B. Gray,et al.  Research involving human subjects. , 1978, Science.

[2]  Peter Grabosky,et al.  Using Non‐Governmental Resources to Foster Regulatory Compliance , 1995 .

[3]  Joanne Scott,et al.  Mind the Gap: Law and New Approaches to Governance in the European Union , 2002 .

[4]  L. Brown.  Political evolution of federal health care regulation. , 1992, Health affairs.

[5]  E. Emanuel,et al.  Should Society Allow Research Ethics Boards to Be Run As For-Profit Enterprises? , 2006, PLoS medicine.

[6]  J. Black.  Decentring Regulation: Understanding the Role of Regulation and Self-Regulation in a ‘Post-Regulatory’ World , 2001 .

[7]  Adam Crawford,et al.  Networked governance and the post-regulatory state? , 2006 .

[8]  E. Langer.  Human Experimentation: New York Verdict Affirms Patient's Rights. , 1966, Science.

[9]  S. Halpern,et al.  Dynamics of Professional Control: Internal Coalitions and Crossprofessional Boundaries , 1992, American Journal of Sociology.

[10]  L. Hooghe,et al.  Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance , 2003, American Political Science Review.

[11]  W. Greenough,et al.  Mission Creep in the IRB World , 2006, Science.

[12]  T. Brennan,et al.  The Rise of Litigation in Human Subjects Research , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[13]  P. Brody,et al.  Accrediting and the Sherman Act. , 1994, Law and contemporary problems.

[14]  Medicare and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations: a healthy relationship? , 1994, Law and contemporary problems.

[15]  The place of private accrediting among the instruments of government. , 1994, Law and contemporary problems.

[16]  C. Scott.  Private Regulation of the Public Sector: A Neglected Facet of Contemporary Governance , 2002 .

[17]  Carol A. Heimer,et al.  REGULATING CREATIVITY: RESEARCH AND SURVIVAL IN THE IRB IRON CAGE[dagger] , 2007 .