Carl E. Schneider
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262028912
- eISBN:
- 9780262328784
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028912.001.0001
- Subject:
- Biology, Bioethics
Medical and social progress depend on research with human subjects. When that research is done in institutions getting federal money, it is regulated by federally required and supervised ...
More
Medical and social progress depend on research with human subjects. When that research is done in institutions getting federal money, it is regulated by federally required and supervised bureaucracies called “institutional review boards” (IRBs) expected to apply bioethical principles in making decisions. Do — can — these administrative agencies do more harm than good? The Censor’s Hand addresses this fundamental but long-unasked question. The book answers the question by consulting a critical experience — the law’s learning about regulation — and by amassing the empirical evidence scattered around many literatures. The book concludes that IRBs are fundamentally misconceived. Their usefulness to human subjects is doubtful, but they delay, distort, and deter research that can save lives, soothe suffering, and enhance welfare. IRBs make decisions poorly. They cannot be expected to make decisions well, for they lack the expertise, ethical principles, legal rules, effective procedures, and accountability essential to good regulation. And IRBs are censors in the place censorship is most damaging — universities in which academic freedom is essential. In sum, IRBs are bad regulation that cannot survive cost-benefit analysis. They were an irreparable mistake that should be abandoned so that research can be conducted properly and regulated sensibly.Less
Medical and social progress depend on research with human subjects. When that research is done in institutions getting federal money, it is regulated by federally required and supervised bureaucracies called “institutional review boards” (IRBs) expected to apply bioethical principles in making decisions. Do — can — these administrative agencies do more harm than good? The Censor’s Hand addresses this fundamental but long-unasked question. The book answers the question by consulting a critical experience — the law’s learning about regulation — and by amassing the empirical evidence scattered around many literatures. The book concludes that IRBs are fundamentally misconceived. Their usefulness to human subjects is doubtful, but they delay, distort, and deter research that can save lives, soothe suffering, and enhance welfare. IRBs make decisions poorly. They cannot be expected to make decisions well, for they lack the expertise, ethical principles, legal rules, effective procedures, and accountability essential to good regulation. And IRBs are censors in the place censorship is most damaging — universities in which academic freedom is essential. In sum, IRBs are bad regulation that cannot survive cost-benefit analysis. They were an irreparable mistake that should be abandoned so that research can be conducted properly and regulated sensibly.
Carl E. Schneider
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262028912
- eISBN:
- 9780262328784
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028912.003.0001
- Subject:
- Biology, Bioethics
How much good IRB regulation can do depends on how much risk research subjects run. Biomedical research can harm subjects, but much of it needs no physical contact with patients, and most contact ...
More
How much good IRB regulation can do depends on how much risk research subjects run. Biomedical research can harm subjects, but much of it needs no physical contact with patients, and most contact cannot cause serious injury. Even truly ill patients are, if anything, safer in than out of research. Social-science research cannot injure people physically, and its risks are trivial compared with the chances free people take daily In short, research harm “has been far less than the harm arising from many entirely ordinary activities” like walking. So the IRB system has less scope to do good than its severity suggests because research is safer than its rhetoric implies.Less
How much good IRB regulation can do depends on how much risk research subjects run. Biomedical research can harm subjects, but much of it needs no physical contact with patients, and most contact cannot cause serious injury. Even truly ill patients are, if anything, safer in than out of research. Social-science research cannot injure people physically, and its risks are trivial compared with the chances free people take daily In short, research harm “has been far less than the harm arising from many entirely ordinary activities” like walking. So the IRB system has less scope to do good than its severity suggests because research is safer than its rhetoric implies.
Carl E. Schneider
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262028912
- eISBN:
- 9780262328784
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028912.003.0003
- Subject:
- Biology, Bioethics
Much evidence suggests that IRBs make decisions badly. For example, when multiple IRBs review the same research protocols, they treat them inconsistently. The IRB system makes error inevitable. ...
More
Much evidence suggests that IRBs make decisions badly. For example, when multiple IRBs review the same research protocols, they treat them inconsistently. The IRB system makes error inevitable. First, bureaucratized event-licensing overtaxes IRBs with too much work to handle and too much paperwork to manage. Second, IRBs necessarily lack the expertise to understand the hyper-specialized studies they license. Third, IRB incentives distort decisions. Unlike the FDA, which weighs a drug’s benefits against its costs, IRBs just protect research subjects. Also, IRBs that say no to research are safe; if they say yes, they risk trouble like institutional disgrace, lawsuits, and federal sanctions that have included (briefly but unforgettably) closing down research at distinguished universities.Less
Much evidence suggests that IRBs make decisions badly. For example, when multiple IRBs review the same research protocols, they treat them inconsistently. The IRB system makes error inevitable. First, bureaucratized event-licensing overtaxes IRBs with too much work to handle and too much paperwork to manage. Second, IRBs necessarily lack the expertise to understand the hyper-specialized studies they license. Third, IRB incentives distort decisions. Unlike the FDA, which weighs a drug’s benefits against its costs, IRBs just protect research subjects. Also, IRBs that say no to research are safe; if they say yes, they risk trouble like institutional disgrace, lawsuits, and federal sanctions that have included (briefly but unforgettably) closing down research at distinguished universities.
Carl E. Schneider
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262028912
- eISBN:
- 9780262328784
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028912.003.0004
- Subject:
- Biology, Bioethics
Good regulation comes from good guidance. IRBs need a coherent and legible ethics but get three principles – respect for persons, justice, and beneficence. A workable ethics is unachievable because ...
More
Good regulation comes from good guidance. IRBs need a coherent and legible ethics but get three principles – respect for persons, justice, and beneficence. A workable ethics is unachievable because IRBs regulate too many diverse areas. And such an attempt would encounter a core contradiction: IRB ethics privilege the autonomy principle, but IRBs are “deeply and pervasively paternalistic,” for they tell people whether and how they may participate in research. Yet research subjects are just as competent to make choices as patients contemplating surgery, homeowners choosing a mortgage, or skiers picking a resort. Although IRBs lack a legible ethics, they have a potent ethos. Instead of showing that IRBs’ usefulness, that ethos recites a litany of research scandals. But scandals are evils, not arguments.Less
Good regulation comes from good guidance. IRBs need a coherent and legible ethics but get three principles – respect for persons, justice, and beneficence. A workable ethics is unachievable because IRBs regulate too many diverse areas. And such an attempt would encounter a core contradiction: IRB ethics privilege the autonomy principle, but IRBs are “deeply and pervasively paternalistic,” for they tell people whether and how they may participate in research. Yet research subjects are just as competent to make choices as patients contemplating surgery, homeowners choosing a mortgage, or skiers picking a resort. Although IRBs lack a legible ethics, they have a potent ethos. Instead of showing that IRBs’ usefulness, that ethos recites a litany of research scandals. But scandals are evils, not arguments.
