Training and Licensing of Health Professionals for Scientific Research - Emphasis on Psychology and California Law

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Patrick

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) heavily influence which research involving human participants may be conducted, and in the United States many investigators must also hold state licensure. This article analyzes legal and ethical limits on licensing bodies and academic institutions, arguing that “arbitrary and capricious” standards lack legally defensible, evidence-supported rationales. It reviews key California and national cases to show that passing scores and academic policies must be justified through reason, transparency, and established legal principles across professional licensure fields.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

“Arbitrary and Capricious” Standards

Scope of Review under the APA

Examples and Practical Challenges

American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research [www.biomedgrid.com](www.biomedgrid.com) ISSN: 2642-1747 Research Article Copyright© Stephen E Berger Training and Licensing of Health Professionals for Scientific Research: Emphasis on Psychology and California Law Stephen E Berger1* and Michael A Berger JD2 1The Chicago School – Anaheim, California, USA 2Touro University Worldwide *Corresponding author: Stephen E Berger, The Chicago School – Anaheim, California, USA. To Cite This Article: Stephen E Berger* and Michael A Berger JD. Training and Licensing of Health Professionals for Scientific Research: Emphasis on Psychology and California Law. Am J Biomed Sci & Res. 2025 27(4) AJBSR.MS.ID.003577, DOI: 10.34297/AJBSR.2025.27.003577 Received: June 17, 2025; Published: June 26, 2025 Abstract Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have great control of what research is conducted with human participants (as well as non-humans) by academic institutions. In addition, in the United States, many researchers need to be licensed by State licensing boards. Generally, these are mental health professionals, such as Clinical Psychologists (e.g., the California Board of Psychology) . The perception that regulatory bodies, such as the California Board of Psychology, can arbitrarily set passing scores for licensure exams is widespread but fundamentally flawed. While courts often defer to licensing boards, their decisions must be legally defensible and not violate the principle of “arbitrary and capricious” decision-making. This article examines key legal cases, both in California and nationally, that establish a clear precedent: passing scores and licensing standards must be based on a rational, evidence-supported justification. Similarly, academic institutions cannot institute “arbitrary and capricious” academic policies. Cases such as Board of Psychology v. San Francisco State University (2004) and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) illustrate that agencies and schools must provide substantive justification for their policies. While this article focuses on California, the broader implications of these rulings extend beyond the psychology examples to all professional licensure fields. This article serves as both a legal and ethical argument against arbitrary decision-making in licensure exams, grading and other academic policies, advocating for a system that upholds fairness, transparency, and adherence to established legal principles. Keywords: Arbitrary, Capricious, Licensing, Research scientist Introduction Research with human participants is a major area of concern in the social sciences. Especially in academic settings, many professionals conducting human research are health professionals and are licensed by their state licensing board. At initial glance, it could appear that these Boards are able to set requirements and standards as the Board members see fit. While this might appear to be the reality, in fact, government Boards cannot arbitrarily set such requirements. This article will include a variety of legal cases that demonstrate this standard, and there will be a focus on psychologists and their licensing Board in California as an exemplar of how legal standards apply to such government agencies. In a phrase, such Boards cannot set standards and requirements that are arbitrary and capricious. Am J Biomed Sci & Res Copyright© Stephen E Berger “Arbitrary and Capricious” Standards In administrative law, when a regulatory agency (like the California Board of Psychology) makes a decision, those decisions can be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) . Oneof the grounds for such a challenge is if the decision is “arbitrary and capricious,” meaning that the decision was made without a reasonable basis or consideration of relevant factors. This concept is codified in: U.S. Code § 706-Scope of review [1] To the extent necessary to a decision and when presented, ther

FAQs

Why do Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) matter for health-related research?

IRBs control what research may be conducted with human participants (and non-humans) by academic institutions, shaping allowable studies and oversight requirements.

What does “arbitrary and capricious” mean in administrative law?

It describes agency decisions made without a reasonable basis or without proper consideration of relevant factors, and such actions can be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act.

What legal standard should licensing boards and schools use when setting exam or academic policies?

Passing scores and licensing standards must be based on rational, evidence-supported justification rather than whim or unsupported criteria.

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Patrick