{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01812688821752266, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.196261682242991, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Federal commissions and local IRBs.


 Yesley reviews the studies done on institutional review boards (IRBs) by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and, later, by the President's Commission for the study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Basing his conclusions on the commissions' findings, he recommends that refining IRB functions may be the best way to improve their performance, and suggests that a review of IRB responsibilities as defined by Department of Health and Human Services regulations could be one task of a re-established Ethics Advisory Board.
