4 ms·

Institutional Review Board dropped the ball and failed at their job. Which reflects on the institution. It's not just about individuals.

• saalweachter 5y ago
  Eh, maybe, but at the same time, I kind of got the feeling that the researchers were treating the IRB as one more layer of security to get around. The IRB is a gatekeeper, yes, but it is also a resource. You should be working with the IRB to make sure everything you are doing is above the board, because ultimately, if you do something unethical or harmful to individuals or society, that's still on you, even if you got your plan stamped by the IRB. You shouldn't have an antagonistic relationship where you use the vague and technically accurate but misleading descriptions of your research an an attempt to get a "get out of consequences free" card.
  • webmaven 5y ago
    > Eh, maybe, but at the same time, I kind of got the feeling that the researchers were treating the IRB as one more layer of security to get around. Which suggests an entirely new line of inquiry: testing IRB procedures to see whether unethical proposals will be approved if described in misleading terms. While we're at it, we should check to see whether proposals ostensibly from people who are not faculty or students, or who perhaps don't even exist, are ever approved. Regardless of the results, we can conclude that having to sign a statement promising to never do unethical research before submitting a proposal, and insisting on identity verification before proposals are reviewed, will lower the chances of unethical research proposals slipping through.