On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 08:08 -0800, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote: > this particular decision seems bizarre.
bizarre decisions are typical of the evolution of any decision-making body. Nobody is perfect. We all have our blind spots and their blind spot happens to be your spotlight, which is why you find the decision bizarre. > Beyond concern for this IRB repeating the error, it occurs to be that > it could be replicated by other IRBs. I am sure it occurs to them as well. For ages, decision-making bodies have dealt with this concern about (in)consistencies of decision across neighbouring jurisdictions. Or in tech terms: replication/syncing of reasoning over space and time. The judicial system has a tried and tested way to propagate updates and synchronize across jurisdictions -- even hostile jurisdictions -- that has worked for centuries and keeps working very well, even when accelerated by technology. The spatial organization in autonomous entities has many reasons. Some are related to the reach of the decision-making authority. Others are of technical nature and include the speed of propagation of the authority's orders. Then there are sovereignty considerations, and this is where each university will defend its own IRB. And that's good, because it adds an important feature: competition. Competition drives innovation, even in decision-making, and the synchronization between parallel spatial organizations (jurisdictions) occurs through a common appeal process to a higher authority. Those universities are subject to state and federal rule. On the downside for this case is the fact that a decision has already made in the case and probably the time to appeal is over. Possibly, there is not even a possibility to appeal against the research as the purpose is to allow science and appeals are most likely designed to give researchers a second chance, not the other way around. However, there is surely also a body that writes the policies along which the IRBs are making decisions, and this is where we need to bring our argument that humans are affected; that the safeguards proposed by researchers are not enough; that more oversight is required. > That makes me wonder about the possible benefit of > independently-developed guidance that might be circulated among > them. Possibly from a respected anti-abuse organization? I am skeptical of every such organization. They invariably represent more or less cover behind the scene influences. What if this IRB takes guidance from one "respected anti-abuse organization" and another IRB takes guidance from another "respected anti-abuse organization" that is of a different opinion? In my view, the opinion of the IRB is enough opinion. Additional opinions of additional entities only helps snake- oil sellers sell more snake-oil. Traditionally, courts (or boards) take their guidance from expert witnesses, which are called by one of the parties in the process to inform the process. This admits that there is no such thing as "independently-developed" and every such expert organization has an agenda. It is better to acknowledge partisanship and deal with it in the open than to investigate backroom influences (typically financial donation). So the party that argues that this is abuse will bring in its expert; the party that argues that this is not abuse will bring in its expert; and the board will make the decision that will then become part of its precedent and as such applied to future decision. The experts are then only required for the marginally new, with the body of guidance enshrined as law in precedent ruling, that can, with effort, be overrulled when new developments come to light. But I am digressing. Yuv -- Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA Ontario-licensed lawyer _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
