2 ms·
> They don't have in their framework protecting the linux kernel from harm any more than they have protecting a jet engine from harm (Sorry if that sounds callo
by ncallaway 6y ago
> They don't have in their framework protecting the linux kernel from harm any more than they have protecting a jet engine from harm (Sorry if that sounds callous).
It sounds pretty callous if that jet engine gets mounted on a plane that carries humans. In this hypothetical the IRB absolutely should have a hand in stopping research that has a methodology that includes sabotaging a jet engine that could be installed on a passenger airplane.
Waiving it off as an inanimate object doesn't feel like it captures the complete problem, given that there are many safety critical systems that can depend on the inanimate object.
- avs733 6y agoYour extrapolation provides clear context about how this can harm people, which is within an irb purview and likely their ability to understand. I’m not saying it is okay, I’m simply saying how this could happen. It requires understanding the connection between inanimate object and personal harm, which in this case is 1)non obvious and 2)not even something I necessarily accept within a common rule definition of harm. Annoyance or inconvenience is not a meaningful human harm within the irb framework But, fundamentally, the irb did not see this as human research. You and I and the commenters see how that is wrong. That is where their evaluation ended...they did not see human involvement right or wrong. And irb is part of the discussion of research ethics, it is not the beginning nor the end of doing ethical research.