Do I keep going or is the IRB approval process clearer now? There is a reason it exists.
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.
> How do you ensure you collected enough of a sample of a general population to make your study representative?
You don’t need to. This would be a pilot study to check whether there’s maybe a there there before you do it larger scale to measure predictive power at population level.
> Do I keep going or is the IRB approval process clearer now? There is a reason it exists.
I think you’re completely failing to engage with the argument that this particular case about time shifting delivery of a drug should not need meaningful IRB engagement other than “I’d like to change the time I deliver the drug for 2 more patients because we had one patient respond positively and this isn’t believed to be a factor” “ok cool yup”.
You’ve jumped from no IRB to full IRB without considering the context of the problem being solved which is why I said when the process becomes the goal vs the problem you’re trying to solve - you’re imaging the worst and most complicated situations possible for a case that would never demand it.
> The IRB is often in place not to stop positive outcomes, but to reduce negative ones.
Research can literally be IRB exempt if it provides minimal or no risk to patients which is literally what this is. Even if you put this in the "minimal risk" category which would be extreme that's still minimal IRB oversight and approval takes ~1-3 weeks.
You're imagining IRB is something it's not even intended to be and then saying it's a reasonable bottleneck in general because of real problems it prevents and thus justified for this specific experiment (where it wouldn't be relevant).
This is top to bottom a failure to follow up - doctor's are overworked & fail to follow up on potential research results because they act more like mechanics.
> the process has become more important than the problem you’re trying to solve.
We have a word for this, which roughly translates to "rule of paperwork". Bureaucracy.
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.
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"
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.
The medical journals are filled with studies that "should have worked" and didn't.
Heck, there are a ton of studies that "should have worked" that were harmful.
So much for "we're just scaled up molecular machines".
There is a difference between "reasonable guardrails" and suffocating progress until it's nearly impossible barring Herculean efforts by multibillion dollar entities. It cannot be understated how badly the current bureaucracy has destroyed medical progress.
We are seeing the same problem with nuclear overregulation result in worse outcomes and more deaths for people globally.
There is real suffering and a human cost, measurable in lives, to slowing down progress - just as there is one for reckless progress.
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.
Our bodies are bigger machines made of lots of little machines.
Our minds or conscious egos or "souls" are the neurotransmitter and activation activity of the connectome and all of its cells and synaptic weights and metabolic activity. They're our lived experiences for as long as our brains can function. Minds experience and produce wonderful things.
If you divorce the body from the mind, there is no "person". Just a very complicated machine. A very valuable machine full of parts.
A human body in a vegetative state is not a person. It's a dormant machine. People may have emotional attachment to that vestige, but it is no longer capable of being a person. It is not a person.
We use brain dead humans for organ transplant all the time. If you understand the premise, then it isn't that far-fetched that we might grow vegetative humans in a lab for medical use and research.
Bodies that never have brains can never become persons. They're no different from plants.
There is decent experimental evidence to demonstrate that we are more than gene expression and the machine analogy you insist on is not a good one for understanding biological systems - see work by Michael Levin, as example.
There is a wider paradigmatic shift underway that moves from thinking about parts to processes. This refocus on relations rather than objects is very important and, for biological systems, points to a fundamentally social/collective aspect to their nature.
The machine metaphor also fails when you can no longer explain how the machine works. This is true in many areas of medicine (e.g. anasthesia) and, while we continue to believe (sometimes with enormous zeal) in the concepts that helped us in the past, we cling to them at the cost of building better understanding.
What you say isn't "wrong", but it is too limited to be a useful guide in asking new questions about things like immunotherapy treatments.
If you toss out the old rule book and provide unlimited funding, it can be made to work.