{
  "abstract": "Post-Ebola Liberia experienced rapid growth in internationally sponsored health research, increasing demands on institutional review boards (IRBs) amid constrained oversight capacity. This qualitative single-case study analyzed meeting minutes from 2018-2019 from one Liberian IRB, coding 124 documented ethical concerns using Emanuel et al.'s eight-principle framework. Scientific validity accounted for nearly half of concerns, while fair participant selection and informed consent formed a second tier, and collaborative partnership and social value were rarely mentioned. These findings suggest that concerns tied to study design, risk-benefit assessment, and consent are raised more frequently than concerns that explicitly address partnership and social value. We interpret this pattern as a profile of documented deficiencies rather than a hierarchy of the committee's ethical commitments, since minutes capture objections and requests for change. The results highlight opportunities to strengthen attention to collaborative partnership, social value, and equity-oriented capacity-building in IRB procedures, and training in Liberia and aid-dependent settings.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [
    "South African Research Ethics Training Initiative (SARETI), School of Social Sciences, College of Humanities, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.",
    "Ethox Centre, University of Oxford, England, UK.",
    "The EthicsLab, Department of Medicine and Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, South Africa."
  ],
  "article_type": "research article",
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 3,
  "authors": [
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Sienneh Zezay Tamba"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        1
      ],
      "name": "Marlyn Faure"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        0,
        2
      ],
      "name": "Heidi Matisonn"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/5y6jrce57j0ew.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.1177/15562646261488591",
  "fulltext_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13718753/",
  "id": "5y6jrce57j0ew",
  "issns": [
    "1556-2646",
    "1556-2654"
  ],
  "landing_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646261488591",
  "language": "en",
  "licence": "CC-BY-NC",
  "licence_label": "CC BY-NC",
  "licence_source": "journal",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [
    [
      "heading",
      "Article"
    ],
    [
      "openalex",
      "2739|Ethics in Clinical Research"
    ]
  ],
  "openalex": "W7214776753",
  "pdf_url": null,
  "pmcid": "PMC13718753",
  "pmid": "42808980",
  "published": "2026-09-29",
  "publisher": null,
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/5y6jrce57j0ew.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-11-02T12:22:43Z",
      "native_id": "PMC13718753",
      "source": "pmc",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646261488591"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [
    {
      "field": "medicine",
      "origin": "openalex:2739|Ethics in Clinical Research",
      "subfield": "epidemiology-public-health"
    }
  ],
  "title": "When Scientific Validity Overshadows Justice: An Analysis of a Liberian Institutional Review Board’s Minutes (2018-2019) using the Emanuel et al. Framework",
  "title_text": "When Scientific Validity Overshadows Justice: An Analysis of a Liberian Institutional Review Board’s Minutes (2018-2019) using the Emanuel et al. Framework",
  "type": "peer-reviewed",
  "updated_at": "2026-11-02T12:22:43Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/5y6jrce57j0ew",
  "venue": "Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE",
  "versions": []
}