Who reviews? Government regulations require that institutional review boards consist of at least five people, including at least one scientist, one nonscientist, and one person from outside the institution. Most boards are larger, but many contain just one outsider.

(a) Why should review boards contain people who are not scientists?

(b) Do you think that one outside member is enough? How would you choose that member? (For example, would you prefer a medical doctor? A member of the clergy? An activist for patients’ rights?)

Institutional review boards must have at least five members, including at least one scientist, one nonscientist, and one outsider, according to government laws.

Individuals are purposely subjected to a treatment in order to measure their responses in an experiment.

According to the question, Institutional review boards must have a minimum of five members, including at least one scientist, one non-scientist, and one outsider. Because scientists are more concerned with the practicality of regulation or the value of its findings, the review boards include persons who are not scientists. People who aren't scientists are included to provide perspective on how ethical it is.

Institutional review boards must have a minimum of five members, including at least one scientist, one non-scientist, and one outsider. As a result, we believe that one outside member may not be sufficient to represent all outsiders and that they may be based on a certain topic based on their experiences, occupation, or even religion. If only one external member can be picked, it is advisable to choose at random. In this sense, the likelihood of a given viewpoint being picked is proportional to its prevalence in the public.