4 ms·

> 5) It's a tragedy that many of our best and brightest STEM minds pursue an education that leads them to jobs optimizing ad-tech or hustling for an exit plan t

> 5) It's a tragedy that many of our best and brightest STEM minds pursue an education that leads them to jobs optimizing ad-tech or hustling for an exit plan to get rich. Many smart people choose ICT because of freedom it offers. Although biological/medical research looks interesting, i would not want to do it because things like this: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/ (even trivial questionnaire research is plagued by impossible board reviews)

ineedasername 6y ago
IRB boards view the inability to adhere to their submission protocols as an extreme red flag because research itself is much more stringent and demanding in the protocols to be followed than simply following IRB submission guidelines. The story you linked to is exactly this situation. They showed up on the doorstep with nothing but a vague idea and no clue on how a project like this was supposed to be organized-- details they could have learned in an hour or two. Research with human subjects is not something you can approach with an MVP, move fast and break things approach. (Also a resident doctor is still literally in training. Needing someone above that level to oversee the process is by no means unreasonable, and a PI is not the same as giving that person credit for the research: The person that wrote this blog could still have received first author placement.) I've had to work with IRBs and I've heard the same committeee described as a nightmare to work with, or a breeze. The difference I've notice is that people who are organized about it do fine. The rest get basic things wrong, raise those red flags, and have a hard time as a result. If you do not, for example, fully describe the data you will use and how it will be used in your initial submission then an IRB must be conservative and assume a general lack of care for such things. Stakes are much higher. There are no "build it in a weekend" projects with human research subjects. You need to be willing to put in at least a few weeks of lit review, proposal organization before you get ready to submit something for review. If a person doesn't have the discipline for that then no serious project they undertake in any profession should be trusted, even when that isn't required. Do you think closing a VC deal would be any less stringent? Would you show up on their doorstep without even knowing how their pitch process worked and expect to be welcomed with open arms? Of course not.

ineedasername 6y ago

IRB boards view the inability to adhere to their submission protocols as an extreme red flag because research itself is much more stringent and demanding in the protocols to be followed than simply following IRB submission guidelines. The story you linked to is exactly this situation. They showed up on the doorstep with nothing but a vague idea and no clue on how a project like this was supposed to be organized-- details they could have learned in an hour or two. Research with human subjects is not something you can approach with an MVP, move fast and break things approach. (Also a resident doctor is still literally in training. Needing someone above that level to oversee the process is by no means unreasonable, and a PI is not the same as giving that person credit for the research: The person that wrote this blog could still have received first author placement.) I've had to work with IRBs and I've heard the same committeee described as a nightmare to work with, or a breeze. The difference I've notice is that people who are organized about it do fine. The rest get basic things wrong, raise those red flags, and have a hard time as a result. If you do not, for example, fully describe the data you will use and how it will be used in your initial submission then an IRB must be conservative and assume a general lack of care for such things. Stakes are much higher. There are no "build it in a weekend" projects with human research subjects. You need to be willing to put in at least a few weeks of lit review, proposal organization before you get ready to submit something for review. If a person doesn't have the discipline for that then no serious project they undertake in any profession should be trusted, even when that isn't required. Do you think closing a VC deal would be any less stringent? Would you show up on their doorstep without even knowing how their pitch process worked and expect to be welcomed with open arms? Of course not.