2 ms·

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
      You are not in fact responding to any argument I've made. My point is that IRBs have an incentive structure that encourages excessive risk aversion. My citation is an instance of this phenomenon in action. It has nothing to do with the particulars of psychology. You have not attempted to address this incentive alignment argument in any way. Blocking an attempt to replicate an alcohol study due to weak evidence for a very small negative effect is another example, albeit hypothetical, of this same excessive risk aversion. You have not made a similarly substantial argument. Instead, you've just asserted that institutional review is embedded in biomedical research. It is, but I think it shouldn't be. > Also, SlateStarCodex is bad. It's amazing that immediately after a paragraph in which you claim to be making a substantive argument, you make a bald and unsupported assertion that an influential and widely-read blog, one that Pinker has called "wonderful", is in fact "bad". This is not the kind of intellectual conversation that HN was meant to host.

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
    You are not in fact responding to any argument I've made. My point is that IRBs have an incentive structure that encourages excessive risk aversion. My citation is an instance of this phenomenon in action. It has nothing to do with the particulars of psychology. You have not attempted to address this incentive alignment argument in any way. Blocking an attempt to replicate an alcohol study due to weak evidence for a very small negative effect is another example, albeit hypothetical, of this same excessive risk aversion. You have not made a similarly substantial argument. Instead, you've just asserted that institutional review is embedded in biomedical research. It is, but I think it shouldn't be. > Also, SlateStarCodex is bad. It's amazing that immediately after a paragraph in which you claim to be making a substantive argument, you make a bald and unsupported assertion that an influential and widely-read blog, one that Pinker has called "wonderful", is in fact "bad". This is not the kind of intellectual conversation that HN was meant to host.