> As an analogy, driving a car is dangerous. Whenever I drive, I could easily kill someone. But the government doesn’t force me to submit a driving plan any time I want to go somewhere. Instead, if I misbehave, I am punished in retrospect. Why don’t we apply the same policy to research?
"We" decided that Tuskegee was bad enough that it should be stopped before harm is done, and that there is no appropriate or sufficient "punish[ment] in retrospect" for the fallout.
The government makes you get a license to drive at all, then "drive a Pinto" versus "drive a Trabant" are similar enough that they don't require more info. They require you to get different licensure to drive a bigger truck where you could potentially cause more harm, or to drive an airplane. In this analogy the IRB is the DMV/FAA/whatever, and you're asking for permission to drive a tank, a motorized unicycle, a helicopter, an 18-wheeler or a stealth fighter. You don't get a Science License rubber stamp because that's like getting a Vehicle License - the variation in "Vehicle" is big enough that each type needs review.
>"We" decided that Tuskegee was bad enough that it should be stopped before harm is done, and that there is no appropriate or sufficient "punish[ment] in retrospect" for the fallout.
The thing is, although you and the linked article seem to be associating IRB approval just with human studies, these days you need it for mouse studies.
There are different IRBs to review animal research[1]. I believe it created for an ethical framework around the use of animals in science. Same thing: what are "we" accepting of when it comes to research of this nature?
In the context of universities, the equivalent of riding a bike or a skateboard here is having people fill out surveys after events, or piloting new services offered by a student health clinic.
(I guess the point of analogies like these are to force us to sweat the details and examples.)
Indeed, and a person with a medical license is able to do much, much more damage than the people who need to ask IRB for permission to do research.
If your point is that we could replace IRBs with some sort of a researcher license, that you need to obtain before being able to do studies that today require IRB approval, then I support it, because while not ideal, it improves over the status quo.
I do think that there’s a debate to be had on how reactive or proactive we should be in ensuring the ethical practice of… well, anything involving significant investment. As a wage case, reactive systems like malpractice suits or board actions against physicians aren’t easy to navigate if you don’t have many resources.
When HN was an entrepreneurship oriented community, the overwhelming attitude had been that it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission. That’s because even if you’re doing something clearly good and morally unimpeachable, having to ask for permission slows you down and invited bikeshedding. Now that HN is a general industry forum, the attitude is more favorable towards preventing risk at a cost of reducing amount of value produced.
"We" decided that Tuskegee was bad enough that it should be stopped before harm is done, and that there is no appropriate or sufficient "punish[ment] in retrospect" for the fallout.
The government makes you get a license to drive at all, then "drive a Pinto" versus "drive a Trabant" are similar enough that they don't require more info. They require you to get different licensure to drive a bigger truck where you could potentially cause more harm, or to drive an airplane. In this analogy the IRB is the DMV/FAA/whatever, and you're asking for permission to drive a tank, a motorized unicycle, a helicopter, an 18-wheeler or a stealth fighter. You don't get a Science License rubber stamp because that's like getting a Vehicle License - the variation in "Vehicle" is big enough that each type needs review.