Case study one revolves around the collection of the data of HIV test results varying in race, ethnicity, sex, social status, age division, and education level. Examiners analyze race differences in HIV positive findings from January 2010 to December 2011. Government-funded clinics in the Midwest region of the United States were the basis of where the lab tests took place. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) has to review all research concerning human subjects. The main concern is to protect and minimize the potential risks or harm the research might cause. The research proposal must follow all regulations requirements before approval (National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2006). IRB ensures that all divisions of society receive the same opportunity to contribute, as fit. Though this is true, inclosing factors that can render some individuals susceptible are the essential characteristics being mental health or terminal illness and situational factors being living status and employment, which depicts fully advised and conscious participation more vulnerable to compulsion. These situations can be most difficult for IRBs (National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2006). There are underlying risks and benefits of researching in order to distribute proper precautions and course of treatment.

One of the risks of investigating is that the data collected by researchers from a particular neighborhood may or not represent the entire community because people are moving in and out of the location. According to the Infectious Disease Advisor (2019), the data collected in areas such as urban cities is drastically different from people in rural areas who live there permanently. The people living in urban areas are more prone to moving from one place to another after completing school degrees, political engagements, business employments, and other activities. The data collected may or not represent or provide the actual data outcome of the research of that particular demographic. Misguided or misrepresented data interpreted by researchers can be cognitive to the reputation of the specific urban or rural areas. If a participant who is from a metropolitan city contracted HIV without knowledge of doing so and moved to a new remote rural location where this research initially took place, this data would likely hinder the outcome of objective data. A social risk for research is discrimination amongst communities and or genders being affected with HIV. Test results could show a valid drift between individual races and genders contracting HIV, further causing a change in one’s interactions or relationships with another.

The data can potentially provide essential information for HIV awareness, prevention, and resources such as medical facilities, drugs, treatments, and where to relocate convention measures. Using the case study’s research convention measures can take government officials initiative to provide proper laws for medical insurance and healthcare. Another benefit from the outcome of the research is that it allows for data that can be used to allocate medical resources efficiently to HIV affected communities. The data can also be used by health officials to decide if they should pass a quarantine notice to the affected communities. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (2006) explains that research intends to be helpful to society. IRB takes responsibility in considering what importance the research contributes to further studies. The level of interest for new knowledge of the research may gain in significance for new results.

There are three types of IRB review levels, which include exempt, expedited, and full board. To be considered as an exempt level, there must be a marginal risk. For an investigation to be expedited, there are fewer reviewers who process and approve certain types of minimal risks from the research objective. Then there is a full board, where research with higher risk is up for discussion in a full meeting of the IRB. The level of risk depends upon how seclusive or extensive the sample occurs to be. With this in mind, the level of IRB that applies most directly to the given case study of HIV results in an anonymous demographic is exempt. In the exempt level, there are eight categories in which two of those are evident in the case study: educational research and federally supported research for public benefit or service programs (John Carroll University, 2019). Concluding that case study one has several defining risks, the variance of the sample is undetermined considering the demographics are unidentified, which lessens the risk of exploitation and security. Although the data may be misguided by people who move in and out of a location during data collection, having more extensive or expansive research will recover the odd outliners.

References
Infectious Disease Advisor. (2019 July 31). HIV Testing Rates Suboptimal in Rural vs Urban Regions in the United States. https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/home/topics/hiv-aids/screening-for-hiv-varies-between-rural-and-urban-region-though-is-uniformly-suboptimal/
John Carroll University. (2019). Things to do and know before preparing your IRB application. https://jcu.edu/research/irb/investigators-guide/step-one-you-begin
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (2006, June 13). Assessing Risks and Potential Benefits and Evaluating Vulnerability (Research Involving Human Participants V1). https://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8033.aspx