4 ms·
This I think is a typical example of having to hold two opposite thoughts at the same time. Yes, it's a bad thing to do, it's pretty obvious that it'll scare t
by radu_floricica 5y ago
This I think is a typical example of having to hold two opposite thoughts at the same time.
Yes, it's a bad thing to do, it's pretty obvious that it'll scare the bejesus out of some people and even worse, have some chilling effect.
On the other hand the pendulum on ethical boards has gone waaaay in the other direction to the point where a lot of very useful research doesn't get done. The most vivid example being that we don't have human challenge trials with Covid, even now when it's crystal clear that actual risks to young healthy people are close to zero. Another example: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/
So, what's my opinion? Well, an "opinion" would require me to chose one of those two perfectly valid points of view. But if I had to, I'd say the travesty that is "ethics boards" has become a bureaucracy so rotten it doesn't even perform its original function of stopping vaguely unethical research, and has instead gone completely the way of paper pushing. While, of course, still drawing a salary from making sure tens of thousands of people are dying needlessly.
- dendriti 5y agoThis is an interesting take. What "very useful research" is being blocked by which IRBs? FWIW, the author of the essay at the link you provided seems deeply ignorant of why IRBs exist. "Mere resident doctors weren’t allowed to do studies on their own. They would probably screw up and start building concentration camps or something. " really?
- radu_floricica 5y agoThe irony of calling Scott Alexander "deeply ignorant" :) Human challenge trials. Hundreds of thousands of dead later, and we're still using statistics to answer questions like "is Omicron ignoring immunity", instead of answering them definitely in a few days with an absolute minimum of risk. I'd volunteer for that, btw, so would literally millions. But it's just not inside the Overton window. This isn't wisdom or caution. It's plain cowardice.
- seebs 5y agoThe reason for this isn't "cowardice", though. I've read a lot of things by practicing people in the field on reasons for which they don't think human challenge trials produce reliable enough data. (Basically: You don't get a representative sample, and you get an unrepresentative sample in ways that are very likely to result in you getting bad data.) There's other reasons to distrust them, and I don't think your assumption that "an absolute minimum of risk" is really on the table is even defensible. And on the whole I think we probably should be using them anyway, with caveats -- but your argumentation here is bad.
- radu_floricica 5y agoPutting aside the question on how useful they are, why do you think my assumption is not defensible?