Professional Ethics, State Laws, and Term Paper

The second category is the expedited category where there is minimal to moderate human contact and low to moderate levels of risk. The last category is the full category where there is moderate to maximum human contact with moderate to high levels of risk. The Saybrook IRB policy specifies how each of these categories is reviewed Saybrook Institutional Review Board, 2012, pp. 7-9()

The Saybrook IRB procedure begins with sending a copy of the application to the chairman electronically in order to determine the appropriate level of review of the application then the review commences. The third step is conducting the review then categorization of the outcome as accept, conditional, pend or deny. The principal research and research supervisor are then notified of the outcome of the review and notified of approval Saybrook Institutional Review Board, 2012, pp. 11-12()

References

American Psychologists Association.(2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: American Psychologists

Fulford, K.W.M., & Howse, K. (1993). Ethics of Research with Psychiatric Patients: Principles, Problems and the Primary Responsibilities of Researchers. Journal of Medical Ethics, 19(2), 85-91.

Mitscherlich, a., & Mielke, F. (1949). The Nuremberg Code Doctors of infamy: the story of the Nazi medical crimes. New York: Schuman.

Pickworth, E. (2000). Should Local Research Ethics Committees Monitor Research They Have Approved? Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(5), 330-333.

Saybrook Institutional Review Board. (2012). Policies and Procedures. San Francisco, CA: Saybrook University.

Singh, R. (1998). Redefining psychological contracts with the U.S. workforce: a critical task for strategic human resource management planners in the 1990s. Human Resources Management, 37(1), 61-69.

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines.....