What is correct about the relationship between a research institution and its IRB(s)?

The statement about the relationship between a research institution and its IRB(s) that indicates officials of the institution may overrule an IRB approval is accurate. In practice, while the IRB (Institutional Review Board) is responsible for reviewing and approving research protocols to ensure the protection of human subjects, institutional officials have the authority to make final decisions regarding the implementation of research within their institution.

This arrangement recognizes that while the IRB focuses on ethical considerations and the protection of research participants, institutional leaders must take into account broader organizational policies, resources, and legal implications. Therefore, if a research protocol is approved by the IRB but does not align with the institution's values, policies, or available resources, officials may decide to refrain from allowing the research to proceed.

The context of the other options illustrates that the IRB does not hold absolute authority over all research decisions, as institutional leaders can intervene when necessary. Additionally, IRB approvals are not permanent and can be subject to review or reversal based on changing circumstances or new information. Lastly, the idea that institutional officials cannot intervene in IRB decisions is inaccurate, as their oversight role is an important aspect of the research governance process.