I wrote on this topic here: https://www.nature.com/articles/544161d. A key problem is the skewed incentives. Ethics administrators never get rewarded for good research; they are only punished for bad research that gets approved. They do not bear the brunt of screening costs: researchers are the ones generating the materials.
Sorry, but while I don't disagree with thorough review of REGULATIONS governing IRB operations (Title 45, Subpart A), modifying LAW without historical review of why the LAW was enacted is playing with tearing down Chesterton Fences. Those laws were enacted in many cases because of egregious past behavior by some researchers.
Trump controls the Executive, and therefore the Agencies, therefore REGULATION. Trump doesn't control LAW; congress does, while Trump can sign or veto.
"Simplification" of LAW is dangerous without understanding it as fully as possible.
This has been going around since I was a graduate student in the 70’s. Our university called it the “Human Subjects Committee”. Yep, questionnaires got the once over—even to the extent that we were “obliged” to inform those subjects of our research findings! Quite a requirement for a study that might be undertaken for several years across different cohorts of students. The way around this of course was to simply fail to inform the committee. This worked for low level, non-funded stuff, but if there was any Fed funding, the university had to sign off on it and hence the HSC became a bottle neck.
Great post and call back to SSC. I remember reading that post years ago lol.
The potential regulatory reduction in the upcoming admin has many of us non traditionally conservatives optimistic. We shall see.
IRB's are far and away the most blatant and widespread violation of academic freedom since 1950.
I wrote on this topic here: https://www.nature.com/articles/544161d. A key problem is the skewed incentives. Ethics administrators never get rewarded for good research; they are only punished for bad research that gets approved. They do not bear the brunt of screening costs: researchers are the ones generating the materials.
Ah, it's worse than I thought. <sigh>
First question that arises about IRB (Institutional Regulatory Bloat) -- "Cui Bono?"
If it's just garden variety parasitic bureaucratic encroachment, then simple exposure to market costs should help reduce the bloat.
But there is little/no exposure to market pressure in walled gardens like academia and government settings.
Sorry, but while I don't disagree with thorough review of REGULATIONS governing IRB operations (Title 45, Subpart A), modifying LAW without historical review of why the LAW was enacted is playing with tearing down Chesterton Fences. Those laws were enacted in many cases because of egregious past behavior by some researchers.
Trump controls the Executive, and therefore the Agencies, therefore REGULATION. Trump doesn't control LAW; congress does, while Trump can sign or veto.
"Simplification" of LAW is dangerous without understanding it as fully as possible.
This has been going around since I was a graduate student in the 70’s. Our university called it the “Human Subjects Committee”. Yep, questionnaires got the once over—even to the extent that we were “obliged” to inform those subjects of our research findings! Quite a requirement for a study that might be undertaken for several years across different cohorts of students. The way around this of course was to simply fail to inform the committee. This worked for low level, non-funded stuff, but if there was any Fed funding, the university had to sign off on it and hence the HSC became a bottle neck.
Interesting! What other things might need to be done to reform science & research?
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/project-2026