Survey of Institutional Biosafety Committees

1
Survey of Institutional Biosafety Committees

• Raymond W. Hackney, DrPH, CIH, CBSP
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• The Future Face of Institutional Biosafety
  Committees
• San Diego, CA
• February 21, 2003

2
Purpose

• Shed light on how IBCs are currently functioning
• Assist institutions in administering their IBCs 

3
Survey of IBCs

• 9/02 An advance notice and questionnaires were
  mailed to 397 IBC contacts, listed with NIH
  (publicly available information)
• 10/02 Reminder post card to non responders
• 11/02 Reminder email to non-responders

4
Survey Response

• 397 IBC contacts
• 12 were returned without delivery
• 4 formally declined to participate
• 2 were completed by one respondent
• 1 was removed from survey results (many
  questions were unanswered)
• 168 completed questionnaires
• 45 response rate (adjusted)

5
Institutions in Survey Population(397 IBC
contacts)
6
Institutions Participating in Survey (168 Survey
Participants)
7
Survey Participants Vs Survey Population
Per Cent
8
Person Completing Questionnaire (168 Respondents)
per cent of respondents
9
Institutional Office Responsible for IBC
Other IRB office Research Sponsored
Programs Other departments
10
Position Responsible for IBC
Faculty 19
11
Personnel Devoted to IBC
12
Does the IBC Have Formal Policies?
13
Is the IBC Required to Make Formal Reports?
14
How Often Does the IBC Meet?
15
By what mechanisms are committee meetings
conducted?
16
Are meetings open to the public?
17
Have members of the public ever attended?
18
If Yes, how often?
19
Public Attendance at IBC Meetings
20
Are IBC minutes available to the public?
21
IBC Responsibilities
22
Ensuring that rDNA Experiments are Reviewed
23
IBC Membership
24
Expertise on IBCs of total IBC members (1403)

• Bacteriology 18
• Physician 15
• Virology 14
• BSO 12
• Animals 11
• Plants 7
• Other EHS 7

• Other 15
• Molecular biology
• Research staff
• Legal counsel
• Administrators

25
Community Membership
26
Who Appoints IBC members?
27
IBC Member Term of Service
28
Formal Training for IBC Members
29
Are there Procedures for Expedited Review?
30
Conditions for Expedited Review
Per Cent of Responses
31
How Many rDNA Protocols Were Reviewed?
32
Are Labs Inspected by BSO?
33
Frequency of Lab Inspections
Less often than Annually 23
Annually 51
34
Coordination with IACUC
Per Cent of Responses
35
Coordination with IRB
Per Cent of Responses
36
Coordination with IACUC (Corrected for not
applicable)
Per Cent of Responses
37
Coordination with IRB(Corrected for not
applicable)
Per Cent of Responses
38
Observations

• Many IBCs are doing an excellent job
• IBCs have limited resources
• IBCs operate with high degree of informality
• IBCs operate with low degree of involvement from
  institutional leadership

39
RecommendationsIBCs can be strengthened by

• Provide more personnel resources to IBC
• Require written policies and institutional
  accountability
• Implement institutional controls to ensure
  compliance with the Guidelines
• Ensure strict adherence to Guidelines despite IBC
  informalities
• Provide training programs for IBC administrators
  and members

40
Acknowledgements

• Nancy King, UNC School of Medicine
• Allan Shipp, NIH Office of Biotechnology
  Activities
• 168 IBC Professionals who participated in the
  Survey