Institutional review boards (IRBs) play a key role in ensuring that genetic research with humans meets ethical and regulatory standards. They are involved with issues such as how research participants will be informed about researchers’ intent to share genomic data broadly, what genetic information will be included in databases, whether the data are adequately deidentified, and whether consent documents adequately explain data sharing. Moreover, IRBs must ensure that investigators conducting genome-wide association studies (GWAS) comply with the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) policy to share deidentified GWAS data with the wider scientific community. GWAS examine associations between genetic variants (genotypes) throughout the human genome and observable traits, such as height, cholesterol levels, or disease (phenotypes). The GWAS data repository is dbGAP (the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes), which the National Center for Biotechnology created as a centralized, controlled-access database. IRBs play a role in implementing the GWAS data-sharing policy, and the NIH has provided specific guidance about this role. When investigators plan to submit GWAS data to dbGAP, IRBs are expected to ensure that 1) uses of the research data are consistent with the terms of participants’ informed consent; 2) deidentification plans are consistent with the NIH data-sharing policy; 3) potential risks to individuals, families, and groups are commensurate with benefits; and 4) data submission and collection are conducted in a manner consistent with federal regulations. Given the central role of IRBs in facilitating data sharing in genetic research and the important ethical and regulatory issues data sharing raises, we conducted a survey to investigate the views, experiences, and attitudes of IRB professionals regarding broad data sharing in genetic research.