I think this observation raises a further discussion about the gatekeeping, chilling effect of ethics boards. Scott Alexander describes his kafkaesque experience with them here:
And as they're so keen to remind us, groups have rights. Which should also mean they have responsibilities.
In my humble opinion, I think the IRB process is backwards: researchers should determine whether their methodology is ethical (or within whatever other institutional regulations), and be tried only after a report is received, or an investigation is started. Not approaching the IRB alone should not be an offense.
Err, I don't think that would work as well as you think. Plenty of studies fall into gray areas, especially in behavioral research, and it's not necessarily easy to reverse the damage once it's done.
The "Little Albert" study could very easily be argued as "ethical" or at least not harmful (almost certainly the behavior became extinct over time) by the researcher, but nonetheless the potential for lifelong harm is there and it would likely never be approved today.
Sometimes once you've done the damage, it's done. Research institutions would rather be safe than sorry with studies involving people, both for basic ethical considerations and reputation interests. Especially after the spat of very questionable studies done in the latter half of the 20th century.
Sure, but those lessons are already learned. It's not like research ethics was materialized out of thin air by institutional review boards: it was synthesized from experience, and then executed by the boards. The ethics are the same whether the assessment is before or after the fact, and nothing stops researchers from consulting the board or anyone else on the topic beforehand, if they are concerned they may run afoul.
I think it's silly to think that an IRB has a better grasp before the fact of how ethical or appropriate a methodology is than the researchers do during the research. In this case, the IRB is being used as a bludgeon to suppress low-risk research which is simply politically inconvenient to the institution.
and be tried only after a report is received, or
an investigation is started
(edit: got two posts backwards, sorry, fixed.)
So yes, waiting until there is a victim to start a trial is a reasonable approach to scientific ethics. It may not be the best one, but it’s surely justifiable.
Sure, but it's not clear that the licensure itself reduces accidents or abuse. Plenty of licensed electricians (at least here in Ontario) are deadly incompetent. I've heard at least two accounts of electricians assuring builders or homeowners that a circuit is disconnected, and those people having an unwelcome surprise when they go to cut/remove said circuit.
It is possible to deal with crime through an 'oversight system', this is called a surveillance state.
As I indicated, I'm uncommitted on which way is best for the case under discussion. For criminal matters, and for hairdressing, I prefer presumption of innocence; for aerospace engineering, licensure and oversight.
I think it is a justifiable approach and might be a better one. We chose IRBs after appalling cases like the Tuskegee Airmen experiment; perhaps we should have hanged the perpetrators instead.
Perhaps not. Having never been an academic, I am aware this subject invokes strong feelings, while having none myself.
I can make a solid case for a less oppressive IRB regime and criminal sanctions for those who harm their test subjects.
A researcher operating under "better to ask forgiveness than permission" is in serious mad scientist, Frankenstein territory.