I respect that someone who studies climate science can have grave concerns with the consensus, and may some day revolutionize or even reverse our current unders

I respect that someone who studies climate science can have grave concerns with the consensus, and may some day revolutionize or even reverse our current understanding. I welcome their criticism. I believe in Red Teams, who do everything they can to tear down the work of the main stream view. If their best efforts to deny a claim fail, you have that much more strength in the claim. Kay Coles James has not studied climate science. As a lay person, she has rejected the scientific consensus. I have a difficult time imagining the value of the input she would provide to any ethics board. I've worked with IRB for healthcare. I wouldn't want a phrenologist on my IRB. Or a homeopathic medicine advocate. Someone who pushes MLM essential oils. A young-earth creationist. A Christian Scientist who rejects medicine. A Scientologist who rejects psychology. Those people aren't on the Red Team. They're on the Denial Team. They don't want to make my process better. They don't believe in my process. There's a huge difference between respecting a person, engaging them on a personal level, listening to their concerns, granting them dignity, allowing them to self-determine, having a vote in politics, etc... And allowing that same person to steer ethics for a corporation, or industry. Society needs to have the broader conversations you're talking about. No question. I hear what you're saying. But an ethics board can and should be more selective about who they invite.