Hacker News Reader

Comment by xr4ti | Hacker News Reader

(A) This is kind of a red herring though. The rules are not uniform. Sick patients require more protections than healthy adults. Placing an implant in someone's leg requires a more comprehensive risk minimization plan than asking someone to look at the ground for 5 seconds and then read a flash card.

(B) Is the lack of risk really self-evident? To everyone? Or just to you? Thus the question who should decide? And by what process do they decide?

View on HN

As for your B point, if we're going to play "but what if" I demand we play it consistently. What is the risk of this study not being performed? Is it self-evident that we are better off in a world where those concrete procedures killed this study?

This is one of the core flaws in bereuacracy, looking at the putative benefits of a policy without considering the costs. No one really denies that some oversight is needed, the question is, is this oversight needed?

"But we cannot be blamed for a different eventuality, like saving lives. It didn't happen, and its our job to make sure that it doesn't, unless policy is adhered to the letter."

I think perhaps we are talking past each other. I certainly agree that there should be rules for conducting research on human subjects and that there should be a process for independent review of said research.

I'm just saying that in this case the people tasked with doing the reviewing did a really bad job. And it seems like, from other things I've read, this sort of bad job isn't exactly uncommon. It would be great if the people in charge of this stuff could reform the system so that IRBs did a bad job less often.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com