An independent ethics review board · in development

IFI Responsibility Board

Rigorous, independent ethics review, made accessible to anyone doing serious work. In development now, and not yet reviewing studies.

How it will work When it opens

01Mission

Every study involving people deserves careful ethical review. For an independent researcher, that review can be hard to arrange and costly to come by. The IFI Responsibility Board exists to change that.

It is the review body of the Idea Fields Institute, and when it opens it will review human-subjects research both from within the Institute (under IFI Research) and from unaffiliated researchers who want genuine, careful review. It is being built to be sustainable, not profitable: fees will be set to cover the work, not to turn it into a business. It will be established as its own body, at arm's length from the Institute and from Johnson Farms, so its judgments answer to no one's commercial interest.

The Board will be deliberately multidisciplinary, drawn from medicine, the sciences, counseling, education, and community life. Most of its members will have no tie to the Institute beyond the Board itself. A chair will lead review; a vice-chair will independently handle anything involving the Institute's own research, so no one reviews their own work and the Institute's studies meet the same arm's-length standard as everyone else's.

The Board's standard is simple to state and demanding to meet: research should leave its participants no worse off, treat them as ends rather than instruments, and be designed well enough that their time is not wasted on a study that cannot answer its own question.

02Principles

The basis of review.

Review follows the three principles articulated in the Belmont Report, with a fourth the Board adds on its own behalf.

  1. Respect for persons

    Participation is informed, voluntary, and revocable. Consent is written to be understood, not merely signed, and people with diminished autonomy receive additional protection rather than less.

  2. Beneficence

    Risks are identified honestly, minimized by design, and justified by the value of what the study can actually learn. Vague benefit does not excuse concrete burden.

  3. Justice

    The people who carry the burdens of research should stand to share in its benefits. Selection of participants is fair, and convenience is never a reason to study the vulnerable.

  4. Candor

    Reviews, determinations, and the reasoning behind them are recorded plainly. Researchers are told why, not just whether, and the Board holds itself to the standards it applies.

03Scope

What the Board will review.

Any systematic investigation involving people, their behavior, or their identifiable data will fall within scope.

Who may submit

  • Studies conducted under IFI Research
  • Projects affiliated with the Idea Fields Institute
  • Independent researchers, by arrangement with the Board

What requires review

  • Interviews, surveys, and observational studies
  • Behavioral and psychological experiments
  • Studies of human interaction with technical systems, including AI
  • Secondary use of identifiable human data

Levels of determination

  • Exempt: minimal-risk work meeting defined criteria
  • Expedited: minimal-risk work reviewed by a designated reviewer
  • Full review: planned as the Board grows; higher-risk studies referred out at first

When it opens, the Board will begin with exempt and expedited review and add full board review as it grows. It will be an independent body and will not claim federal registration or jurisdiction it does not hold. Where a study requires review by a registered IRB (for regulatory, funding, or publication reasons), the Board will say so and help the researcher find the right venue.

04Process

From protocol to determination.

How review will work once the Board opens. It is meant to be a conversation with a record, not a gate with a queue. Most exchanges happen in writing; the steps are the same for every study.

  1. Inquiry

    A short note describing the study idea, the people involved, and the rough timeline. The Board responds with whether review is required and at what level.

  2. Protocol submission

    The full protocol: research questions, methods, recruitment plan, consent materials, instruments, and a data handling plan covering collection, storage, retention, and disposal.

  3. Review

    The Board reads the protocol against its four principles and returns written questions or requested revisions. Most protocols go through at least one round of revision; that is the process working, not failing.

  4. Determination

    A written determination (approved, approved with conditions, or not approved), with the reasoning on the record. Approval covers the protocol as submitted, not the general idea.

  5. Ongoing oversight

    Amendments are reviewed before changes take effect. Adverse events and unanticipated problems are reported promptly, and longer studies check in on a schedule set at approval.

05Availability

The Board is being established now.

We are seating reviewers and finalizing process before opening to submissions, so that the first protocol the Board reviews is handled as carefully as the hundredth. When it opens, review will begin with a short inquiry rather than paperwork: a paragraph or two on what you want to study, who is involved, and the timeline, and a plain answer on whether review is needed and at what level, before you invest in a full protocol.

To hear when review opens, or to ask a question in the meantime, the Board is reachable at irb@ideafields.institute.

06Contact

Questions about review, scope, or a study you took part in? Write to the Board.

irb@ideafields.institute irb.ideafields.institute