3 ms·

Sure, you could run an alcohol intervention by an IRB and see what they say. If they think there is equipoise they might go for it. Just because I don't agree d

Sure, you could run an alcohol intervention by an IRB and see what they say. If they think there is equipoise they might go for it. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I feel strongly about it or would throw down some gauntlet.

quotemstr 8y ago
I don't accept the legitimacy of IRB rulings; I hope to see a day when these bodies stop blocking research. Researchers are competent to be ethical on their own. My reading (not just [1], although [1] is a lucid examination) suggests to me that IRBs are net detrimental to research. There's an incentive misalignment that pushes them too far in the "harm" prevention camp and that makes it too difficult to answer scientific questions. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/
- carbocation 8y ago
  > I don't accept the legitimacy of IRB rulings That's too bad. The rest of us try to learn something from Nuremberg.
- tptacek 8y ago
  If I am following your logic here, you're saying that because you read a blog post in which a practitioner was surprised at how much more ethically complex it is to conduct scientific research than it is to simply deliver the current state of the art to a patient, you've come to believe that biomedical research should be freed from institutional oversight?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    Yes, I think IRBs today do more harm than good. Is that yet another opinion I'm not allowed to express in polite company?
    - tptacek 8y ago
      You can express that opinion, but it sounds awfully like you don't understand what your source ("Scott Alexander") was saying, or perhaps that both you and your source don't understand (a) the distinction between practice and research and (b) the relative cultural fixity of institutional reviews in biomedical research versus talk therapy. So I guess what I'd say is that it looks like the one thing you know about IRBs is that Scott from SlateStarCodex once had a run-in with them and generalized wildly from it.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        If I've said something incorrect, refute it. Otherwise, stop it with the vague insinuations. You have no idea what I've read about IRBs and you haven't engaged with any specific arguments in anything I've linked. "It sounds like" is not an argument. It's putting words in someone's mouth.
        tptacek 8y ago
        I'm responding to the argument you actually made, not the variety of arguments you hypothetically could have made. My response has been substantive; I've clearly read the same article you did, as well as your citation. If you're unhappy with your own argument, don't blame me for it. I think neither of will profit from continuing this discussion, though. You can safely sum up my point as "the problems people in psychology, and the social sciences in general, have with IRBs do not necessarily generalize to biomedical research". One of the basic complaints scientists have about IRBs is the "mission creep" from human medical research to the rest of the sciences. The premise of that argument doesn't line up with your argument here on this thread. Also, SlateStarCodex is bad.
        quotemstr 8y ago

quotemstr 8y ago

I don't accept the legitimacy of IRB rulings; I hope to see a day when these bodies stop blocking research. Researchers are competent to be ethical on their own. My reading (not just [1], although [1] is a lucid examination) suggests to me that IRBs are net detrimental to research. There's an incentive misalignment that pushes them too far in the "harm" prevention camp and that makes it too difficult to answer scientific questions. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/

carbocation 8y ago
> I don't accept the legitimacy of IRB rulings That's too bad. The rest of us try to learn something from Nuremberg.
tptacek 8y ago
If I am following your logic here, you're saying that because you read a blog post in which a practitioner was surprised at how much more ethically complex it is to conduct scientific research than it is to simply deliver the current state of the art to a patient, you've come to believe that biomedical research should be freed from institutional oversight?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Yes, I think IRBs today do more harm than good. Is that yet another opinion I'm not allowed to express in polite company?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    You can express that opinion, but it sounds awfully like you don't understand what your source ("Scott Alexander") was saying, or perhaps that both you and your source don't understand (a) the distinction between practice and research and (b) the relative cultural fixity of institutional reviews in biomedical research versus talk therapy. So I guess what I'd say is that it looks like the one thing you know about IRBs is that Scott from SlateStarCodex once had a run-in with them and generalized wildly from it.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      If I've said something incorrect, refute it. Otherwise, stop it with the vague insinuations. You have no idea what I've read about IRBs and you haven't engaged with any specific arguments in anything I've linked. "It sounds like" is not an argument. It's putting words in someone's mouth.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I'm responding to the argument you actually made, not the variety of arguments you hypothetically could have made. My response has been substantive; I've clearly read the same article you did, as well as your citation. If you're unhappy with your own argument, don't blame me for it. I think neither of will profit from continuing this discussion, though. You can safely sum up my point as "the problems people in psychology, and the social sciences in general, have with IRBs do not necessarily generalize to biomedical research". One of the basic complaints scientists have about IRBs is the "mission creep" from human medical research to the rest of the sciences. The premise of that argument doesn't line up with your argument here on this thread. Also, SlateStarCodex is bad.
        quotemstr 8y ago