Non-compliance

Non-compliance is defined as significant failure by an investigator to abide by federal or state regulations or university policy governing the protection of human participants in research, including the requirements or determinations of the IRB.

Serious Non-compliance

Serious non-compliance is defined as an action that potentially places participants at more than minimal risk and involves deliberate disregard for the regulations or the determinations of the IRB. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• beginning or continuing more than minimal risk research without IRB approval;
• serious misuse or non-use of approved consent forms;
• failure to secure IRB approval before introducing changes in an on-going protocol, when those changes potentially constitute more than minimal risk to the participants;
• not reporting Adverse Events or Unanticipated Problems consistent with UNI policy (see Reporting Problems).

Continuing Non-compliance

If an investigator engages in multiple occurrences of any level of non-compliance (serious or otherwise) and the IRB believes that the non-compliance involves deliberate disregard of IRB policy, that constitutes continuing non-compliance. 

All faculty, staff, students, and administrators are responsible for supporting the ethical conduct of research involving human participants at UNI. This includes reporting possible non-compliance promptly to the IRB Chair or IRB Administrator so that it can be addressed, and educational and other corrective actions taken, along with communicating the noncompliance to the appropriate advisor, supervisor or department head, as applicable. In addition, IRB members and staff may monitor research conducted at UNI, including the day to day conduct of research as well as the reporting and dissemination of results. If a question arises as to whether a particular project was reviewed by the IRB or whether particular procedures were approved, the IRB Administrator informally inquires about it, as necessary, and reports any unresolved questions to the Chair. A letter or email describing the IRB’s concern is then prepared by the IRB Chair and/or IRB Administrator offering the investigator an opportunity to respond via email, in writing, at an informal conference, or at an IRB meeting, and specifying a time period within which the response must be provided. If the investigator offers a timely and satisfactory explanation for the concern, the process will be terminated and the researcher will be notified in writing. If the investigator offers an explanation that fails to satisfy the complaint, or if the investigator fails to respond within the specified time period, the IRB Chair, in consultation with the IRB Administrator, will make a determination of whether the action appears to have involved deliberate disregard or lack of knowledge/awareness and whether the noncompliance is Serious and/or Continuing. Consideration will be given to the length of time the individual has been engaged in research, the extent and nature of previous involvement with the IRB, and any previous communications with the IRB. If a consensus determination cannot be reached, the matter will be discussed and voted on by the full IRB. All instances of non-compliance will be kept confidential, except when reporting within the university, to OHRP, and/or to sponsors is necessary. 

Possible Actions by the IRB

Federal regulations require that instances of serious or continuing non-compliance be reported to the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP). Sponsors, administrators, and others may also be notified. Initial reports to OHRP will be made as soon as possible, and at least within 4 weeks of the IRB making a determination as to the nature of the concern.  

Non-compliance involving no or minimal risk to participants or first occurrences that are believed to be the result of ignorance or misinterpretation of IRB policy will not result in a report to OHRP, although other sanctions or requirements for education may be applied. Examples include: 

failure to secure IRB approval before beginning research or introducing protocol changes, when those changes constitute minimal or no risk to the participants.

OHRP does not require reporting on Exempt projects, but the IRB may choose to do so, depending on the circumstances. 

Federal regulations (45 CFR 46.113) provide the IRB with the authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with IRB requirements. Depending upon the nature and seriousness of the non-compliant activity, the IRB may take the following actions: 

1. Require a response from the investigator with a plan for corrective actions
2. Require the investigator to complete additional human participants protection training
3. Initiate audits of the active protocols
4. Require that research participants previously enrolled in the study be contacted and provided with additional information and/or re-consented
5. Suspend or terminate the study
6. Freeze sponsored research grant accounts
7. Determine that data collected during non-compliance cannot be used for publication
8. Require that data collected during non-compliance be destroyed
9. Require that a statement be included with all publications or research reports indicating that the research was not approved by the IRB
10. Report to the sponsor, university officials, and governmental agencies, (e.g., NIH, OHRP)
11. Disqualify the investigator from conducting research involving human participants at the university

In the case of serious or continuing non-compliance, the IRB and the university will address the question of the investigator's qualifications to conduct human participants research. The IRB will also take remedial action, as necessary, regarding the welfare of the participants and the research data gathered in non-compliance. Further, the IRB may refer instances of serious or continuing non-compliance to the department chair, dean, and provost, who may decide whether to impose disciplinary sanctions. Non-compliance may also be referred to the UNI Research Integrity Officer if it involves potential violations of the institutional policy on research misconduct. The distinction between remedial action taken by the IRB and disciplinary action taken by an administrator is: Remedial action is action that the IRB takes or may require on behalf of present or future human participants in research. Disciplinary action, in this context, is a penalty imposed by administrators on an investigator for non-compliance with human subjects or related research regulations.