Guidelines needed for the use of AI in the preparation or review of IRB, IBC, and IACUC applications.
Journal:
Accountability in research
Published Date:
Jan 8, 2026
Abstract
Three oversight bodies review research proposals to help ensure the safe and responsible conduct of biomedical research, each focusing on unique aspects of research ethics: institutional review boards (IRBs), institutional biosafety committees (IBCs), and institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs). The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in research oversight is rapidly expanding, specifically when preparing and reviewing applications. Although using AI may reduce administrative costs and burdens, it also may create new concerns since AI tools can make mistakes of fact and reasoning, and are susceptible to bias. Furthermore, outsourcing ethical planning and oversight of research to AI could compromise ethical understanding. Although the arguments for/against using AI in preparation or review of IRB, IBC, or IACUC differ fundamentally from those concerning AI use in manuscript writing/peer review, currently there is minimal guidance about the responsible use of AI in research oversight from government agencies, professional organizations, universities, hospitals, and other entities that conduct research. We argue that 1) to minimize the risks of using AI in research oversight, additional guidance is urgently needed; and 2) humans must always be the final decider because ethical planning and oversight involve value judgments that should not be outsourced to AI.
Authors
Keywords
No keywords available for this article.
