Week 8 Ethics and Role of IRB 
A Read the assignment in its entirety prior to initiating the activity. Step 1: In this discussion you will discuss experiment ethics. Reflect on the Milgrim Study, the Stanford Prison Experiment, or the Tuskegee Syphillis Study. Describe the ethical failings of the experiment and how adherence to the guidelines in the Brandman IRB website could have changed the situation. Then, describe the potential risks to subjects in your CSP. Step 2: This assignment requires each student to collaborate with classmates on the design of their projects. Each student must make a substantive comment on three classmates’ posts on or before Friday. A substantive comment points out a strength of the design or an opportunity to refine the design. Step 3: Each student must respond to his/her classmates’ comments about his/her project on or before Sunday night. Responses must demonstrate that the student understands the classmate’s feedback and is willing to incorporate it into the design of the project or has a cogent reason for not doing so. The initial post should be 300 to 400 words long. The post should be written using the  professional style described in the APA manual (6th ed.). *You will also need to include an APA reference list at the bottom of your post to the extent  possible in Bb DB format (i.e. no indenting or double spacing). 
The ATTACHMENT HAS THE SCHOOL IRB FLOW DIAGRAM
Links
  
The Link to Stanford Prison experiment
https://cdnapisec.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/2406131/uiconf_id/43535851/entry_id/0_prl6po8o/embed/dynamic
The Link to Milgram Study
https://cdnapisec.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/2406131/uiconf_id/43535851/entry_id/0_98zymexf/embed/dynamic

FinalIRBWorkflowDiagram1.pdf

In order to ensure compliance with federal and institutional regulations, each application submitted to Brandman University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) undergoes three levels of review in the following order:
1. Dissertation Chair review 2. IRB Coordinator review 3. IRB Committee review
Note: If the IRB Committee determines the application is in need of minor revisions, the application must be revised and submitted to a final (fourth) review by the Chair of the IRB Committee. If the IRB committee determines the application is in need of major modifications, the application must be revised and undergo all stages of review, beginning with the Dissertation Chair’s second review.
Student accesses and submits online application via link
listed on irb.brandman.edu
REVIEW 1: Dissertation
Chair Review
Dissertation Chair approves
application.
Dissertation Chair returns for
revisions. Requests sent to
applicant.
REVIEW 2:IRB Coordinator
Review
IRB Coordinator approves
application.
IRB Coordinator returns for revisions.
Requests sent to applicant.
REVIEW 3: IRB Committee
Review
Application approved with minor revisions. Applicant
must revise application with committee feedback and
submit for IRB Chair Review.
Application requires major modification. Application
must be revised with committee feedback.
Application is re-routed to the beginning of workflow and will undergo all stages
of review again.
REVIEW 4*: IRB Chair Review.
*Only required for applications
requiring minor revisions.
Application approved. Applicant may proceed with research
IRB Chair returns for revisions.
Requests sent to applicant.
Updated 05.12.2017 Brandman University Institutional Review Board
Online Student Application Process WorkflowUMASS GLOBAL INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD Online Student Application Process Workflow
In order to ensure compliance with federal and institutional regulations, each application submitted to UMASS GLOBAL’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) undergoes three levels of review in the following order:
*UMass Global, Formerly Brandman University*