6 ms·
Even simple studies are expensive and difficult. You need IRB approval, data collection and organization, staff to do those things. It seems simple from the out
by _qua 1y ago
Even simple studies are expensive and difficult. You need IRB approval, data collection and organization, staff to do those things. It seems simple from the outside but making it happen takes time, effort, and money which then means also applying for grants which is a process in and of itself.
- renewiltord 1y agoIndeed, as any ethicist worth his salt would argue: we don’t want anyone saving lives without proper approval.
- vkou 1y agoAny ethicist worth your salt would presumably have no problem approving experiments that will also cost lives. There are an endless number of parameters in medicine that can be fiddled with. If an N=1 sample were enough to convince you, all sorts of garbage would meet that pattern.
- refurb 1y agoWhat a intellectually lazy response. No, it would be more accurate to say "any ethicist worth his salt would argue: don't make changes that could be harmful based on a hunch"
- southernplaces7 1y agoI think it was a bit tongue in cheek, not so much lazy. Also, considering the kinds of gatekeeping and forced "concerns" I've seen some ethicists push forth just for the sake of showcasing their fixations instead of really looking at costs and benefits, I don't think it's far off the mark on reality to argue that medical ethics is worth considerable scrutiny too, and shouldn't hid behind a mantle of being above criticism.
- echelon 1y agoIt's no wonder biology hasn't even entered into the punch-card phase. When I did my bio undergrad I was keenly aware our bodies are just scaled up molecular machines. I was hoping for a future where we'd grow MHC-neutral clonal bodies for organ harvesting. Nope. We're in the stone age.
- _qua 1y agoMove fast and break things in human medicine means unethical researchers maim and kill people, often marginalized people. Nazis, Japanese experimenting on prisoners, Tuskegee airmen syphilis experiments, Cincinnati radiation experiments and many others stand as testament to what ambitious unethical scientists will do to further their knowledge and career. Thus we have strict guardrails that slow down how we do things.
- echelon 1y agoWe've been able to clone mammals for 30 years and haven't acted on it. We're still toying with molecular systems beyond the limit of detection. Clone humans. Cut off their brain stem during development. Turn off cephalization signals for good measure. Scale it up to industrial scale. Research problems solved. We'd have every study at our fingertips. We'd have organs and tissue and blood for everyone. We could possibly even do whole head transplants and cure all non-blood, non-brain cancers. But we're playing in the sand.
- cannonpr 1y agoYou might be surprised at how little of the body still functions without brain function, well, some bits of the brain, including basic homeostasis and immune system function.
- echelon 1y agoWe're not at all trying. If you toss out the old rule book and provide unlimited funding, it can be made to work.
- vlovich123 1y agoIf a study like this needs a complicated IRB approval or extra data collection vs what’s already being collected for health records, you’re doing it wrong and the process has become more important than the problem you’re trying to solve.
- dotancohen 1y ago> the process has become more important than the problem you’re trying to solve. This holds true in almost every professional field for which life is on the line. Medicine, class 3 electronics, aviation. We have a word for this, which roughly translates to "rule of paperwork". Bureaucracy.
- darkwater 1y agoAnd I think there is a reason why the bureaucracy exists in these cases. "Move fast and break things" doesn't work very well there.
- owenthejumper 1y agoWhat happens if your study clearly hurts people? What happens if your study clearly helps people? You find out in the first few weeks, what do you do? How do you ensure you collected enough of a sample of a general population to make your study representative? How do you ensure your patients properly consented to the study (past shameful human experiments aside, you likely need many institutions participating, so you can't control everything yourself). Do I keep going or is the IRB approval process clearer now? There is a reason it exists.
- Panzer04 1y agoWe can appreciate that process is important, but at some point you're falling down a slippery slope here, surely? We're talking about a factor that no one has previously had reason to consider important. Of course, I don't know hard it truly is to undertake a study. I have to imagine for something like this you could write up a basic study protocol in fairly short order.
- 1y ago