{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025787965616045846, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0071633237822349575, 'mean_word_length': 5.297297297297297, '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}}
Institutional review boards and collaborations between academia and industry: some counterproductive policies and practices

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs) in their design and function reflect the political, social, and cultural environment of the United States, just as their U.K. counterparts "research ethical committees," reflect the values of the United Kingdom. This article focuses on some of the ways in which problems in the collaboration between industry and academia become manifest in the context of IRB review of many such proposed collaborations in the United States, but I shall begin, by way of contrast, with a passage from an editorial in the May 7, 1983 issue of The Lancet':