Any proposed changes to the project may affect the original provision of the exemption. Therefore, the amendments must be presented prospectively for the subsequent review and determination of the exemption. Researchers are responsible for making any new information available to students that has been made public during the study. Is the researcher aware, during the course of the research, of new information on the study interventions or the health status of patients that (1) may be relevant to the willingness to continue the study; and/or (2) violates the rights, safety and well-being of study participants; and/or (3) have an impact on the completion of studies, methods, procedures and outcomes; and/or (4) amend the Ethics Committee`s agreement on the behaviour of studies, the researcher then has the responsibility to continuously update the subjects relating to new information, and the subjects have the right to express their concerns, ask questions or even revoke the consent given previously. In such cases, informed consent must be obtained on a continuous basis on several occasions as new relevant information becomes known. [1.2.22] It is very important that researchers carefully review Cal Poly.B`s policy for the use of human subjects in research and other sections of this paper to clarify the points mentioned here (for example, the use of informed consent, vulnerable groups, experimental methods) and to ensure that research practices are consistent with these guidelines. The data and security monitoring plan should include a regular review of accumulated research data and other relevant information to ensure the validity and integrity of the data, and not to alter the expected benefit-risk ratio of participation in the study. In addition, an ongoing review of study procedures is needed to ensure that the privacy of researchers and the confidentiality of research data have not been violated. The proponent must immediately disclose this information to the FDA and reviewers who have been invited to participate in the research or “essentially equivalent clinical examination,” as well as to other IRBs that have been screened or are invited by that sponsor to verify these examinations or a fundamentally equivalent review. In determining whether the Community consultation and disclosure procedure is appropriate for an EFIC study, the IRB must take into account the views and concerns of the Community, assess the adequacy of the consultation and disclosure process and take into account the results of the Community`s consultation and debate in its decision-making process.