Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 165 posts

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#51

Post by nxobject »

cal1co wrote: post #34

An article like this is interesting from a research (meta-research?) perspective, but I think the lack of relevant case law (nobody seems to have ever been prosecuted) really undermines the usefulness. It's easy for people (especially the kinds of people who gravitate towards engineering) to get all worked up about the necessary implications of the regulations as-written. But it's also important to remember that bein…

Conversely, a social and “in practice” reason why government-funded institutions _do_ use IRBs is to allay fiscal hawks and criticism about state funding being misused.

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#52

Post by cess11 »

voxic11 wrote: post #27
michaelt wrote: post #21

As a foreigner something I've always found hilarious is that on one hand, Americans in academia act like mailing a survey to adults is Performing Research On Humans and it's wildly unethical to do so without IRB approval, informed consent, data control, the right to withdraw at any time and so on. But at the same time American corporations will gleefully A/B test to determine the most clicked ads, the most profitable…

That is because most academics work at institutions which receive federal funding and all human research at such institutions requires IRB approval. American corporations in general do not receive federal funding and so IRB approval is only required in limited circumstances such as research on unapproved medical drugs and procedures.

Are you sure it's not common for US corporations to have access to public funds, either through subsidies or public investment of some sort?

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#53

Post by asdff »

This is basically why some researchers gravitate towards certain model systems in terms of abstracting the problem. It is just easier in terms of approval the simpler things get and you can basically grasp at the same sort of questions since basic cell biology is so conserved. You can do things like grow up a generation of transgenic yeast that glows green under UV light and then pour bleach over it and throw it in a carboy for disposal over the week without anyone needing approve anything but the form for the carboy to get incinerated. You try and write up a proposal for transgenic mice it might take months since the IRB needs planets to align for meetings to be scheduled. And you are paying orders of magnitude more for orders of magnitude fewer individuals in your sample that will take orders of magnitude longer to get data, than an organism that can measure reproduction rates on the log scale over hours and cost pennies on the billions.

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#54

Post by tonetegeatinst »

This is just as confusing and explosives and energetics research.

Explosives are regulated by the ATF, but can also fall under regulations of the DOT and the EPA. And if your doing any pulse power z pinch or electronic detanator experiment or research, then that's also regulated.

Keep in mind this also has state regulations and ordinance to worry about and its almost like they are trying to get you to accidentally make some mistake that can technically be a felony. And they can visit and do inspections during your hours of operations.

Potato cannons, model rockets, and innovation and experiments in your backyard seem to be impossible these days.

Do I think safety is important, sure, but I'd argue that the paperwork of regulation has stifled the common man who want to follow the laws.

Also see: export control and gpu's

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#55

Post by avalys »

mrkeen wrote: post #43
avalys wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cite that this actually happens? Note that “this person is a psychologist and is employed by Meta working on user research” is not evidence that supports the statement you made.

This comes to mind https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-...

In what way does this article support the claim that psychologists “experiment on social media users for maximizing their various engagement and click metrics”?

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#56

Post by appleorchard46 »

cal1co wrote: post #34

An article like this is interesting from a research (meta-research?) perspective, but I think the lack of relevant case law (nobody seems to have ever been prosecuted) really undermines the usefulness. It's easy for people (especially the kinds of people who gravitate towards engineering) to get all worked up about the necessary implications of the regulations as-written. But it's also important to remember that bein…

This is addressed at a few different points in the article, I found this bit particularly insightful:

> So what happens in practice is politicians write a vague law. Bureaucrats turn that law into very detailed (but often still vague) specific rules. Those rules might or might not be “legal”, but nobody want to risk fighting them in court. If the regulations are particularly ridiculous or likely to be overturned if challenged, prosecutors may quietly stop bringing cases. But the regulations still sit there on the books. And people still usually pay attention to them, because why risk it?

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#57

Post by noodlesUK »

Xcelerate wrote: post #47
cal1co wrote: post #34

An article like this is interesting from a research (meta-research?) perspective, but I think the lack of relevant case law (nobody seems to have ever been prosecuted) really undermines the usefulness. It's easy for people (especially the kinds of people who gravitate towards engineering) to get all worked up about the necessary implications of the regulations as-written. But it's also important to remember that bein…

> It's easy for people (especially the kinds of people who gravitate towards engineering) to get all worked up about the necessary implications of the regulations as-written I was once trying to figure out taxes owed on some RSUs granted in California that vested in North Carolina (and some other edge case that I can’t remember). Hoh boy. What a rabbit hole. I didn’t think the CPA that I hired to do my taxes handled…

I think this illustrates an issue in common law systems in general. Contrary to what we’re taught in school about how actions are generally legal by default, and only illegal if a law has been passed to prohibit them, in reality, actions exist in a superposition of legal and illegal until someone challenges that position and a court finds out (subject to any appeals). You can only evaluate in practice whether something is legal based on copying others in similar situations. The further you get from the known outcomes the fuzzier this all becomes.

This tends to be something people encounter a lot around tax, complex business structures, and various international dealings where you’re more likely to end up in an edge case that hasn’t been well explored.

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#58

Post by asdff »

arnonejoe wrote: post #46

When I was an undergrad I volunteered for a few different studies conducted by Phd candidates. How much independent research is conducted at universities w/o permission?

If they took on human subjects it all has to have written approval.

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#59

Post by sfpotter »

But sometimes, when everyone is having fun, some very mean very bad people show up and say, “HEY! YOU CAN’T DO THAT! THAT’S HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH! YOU NEED TO GET APPROVAL FROM AN INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD!”

I can't stand this precious style of writing. I wish it were less ubiquitous. I think what upsets me about it is that it's disingenuous. When it registers as "cute and charming", it flies over the reader's head and doesn't encourage them to evaluate for themselves whether something like an IRB (or whatever) should exist. If it comes across as disingenuous---or if the reader doesn't feel like the "very mean very bad people" are "very mean" or "very bad"---then the reader is put in the position of feeling like they're going to rain on someone's parade if they disagree. Basically, it's a rhetorical tactic used to forestall argument or discussion about something the writer finds distasteful. I find myself unwilling to read an article if it opens this way because I don't feel comfortable trusting anything the writer says since they've already opened their piece with a piece of rhetoric which is essentially dishonest.

Re: Who exactly needs to get approval from an institutional review board (IRB)?

#60

Post by nxobject »

tonetegeatinst wrote: post #54

This is just as confusing and explosives and energetics research. Explosives are regulated by the ATF, but can also fall under regulations of the DOT and the EPA. And if your doing any pulse power z pinch or electronic detanator experiment or research, then that's also regulated. Keep in mind this also has state regulations and ordinance to worry about and its almost like they are trying to get you to accidentally ma…

> I'd argue that the paperwork of regulation has stifled the common man who want to follow the laws.

I’d argue that it’s not the regulations themselves, but people who want to avoid liability, whether ethical or social. (The existence of institutional review is a good argument against, say, a fiscal hawk looking at a state university’s research output to identify the existence of fraud or abuse.)

Post reply on HN