Researchers engaging in human subjects research generally need IRB approval. This includes studies involving interaction with individuals, or the use of their identifiable private information. While some activities like quality improvement projects, oral histories, or certain types of program evaluations might be exempt, it's crucial to consult with your institution's IRB to determine whether your project requires review. Ultimately, the IRB is responsible for ensuring ethical research practices and protecting the rights and welfare of human participants, so seeking their guidance is paramount.
The author argues that science has always been intertwined with politics, using historical examples like the Manhattan Project and Lysenkoism to illustrate how scientific research is shaped by political agendas and funding priorities. They contend that the notion of "pure" science separate from political influence is a myth, and that acknowledging this inherent connection is crucial for understanding how science operates and its impact on society. The post emphasizes that recognizing the political dimension of science doesn't invalidate scientific findings, but rather provides a more complete understanding of the context in which scientific knowledge is produced and utilized.
Hacker News users discuss the inherent link between science and politics, largely agreeing with the article's premise. Several commenters point out that funding, research direction, and the application of scientific discoveries are inevitably influenced by political forces. Some highlight historical examples like the Manhattan Project and the space race as clear demonstrations of science driven by political agendas. Others caution against conflating the process of science (ideally objective) with the uses of science, which are often political. A recurring theme is the concern over politicization of specific scientific fields, like climate change and medicine, where powerful interests can manipulate or suppress research for political gain. A few express worry that acknowledging the political nature of science might further erode public trust, while others argue that transparency about these influences is crucial for maintaining scientific integrity.
Summary of Comments ( 73 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43038395
HN commenters largely discuss the overreach and bureaucracy of IRBs, particularly for low-risk research. Many share anecdotes of seemingly unnecessary IRB hurdles for projects involving publicly available data or simple surveys. Some question the efficacy of IRBs in actually protecting participants, suggesting they're more focused on liability protection for institutions. A few commenters point out the chilling effect excessive IRB requirements can have on valuable research, especially for independent researchers and smaller institutions lacking dedicated IRB staff. Others offer advice on navigating the IRB process, including pre-registering studies and seeking out institutions with more streamlined procedures. The general sentiment is that IRB review is important for ethically sensitive research but the current system is often overly burdensome and needs reform.
The Hacker News post discussing who needs IRB approval has a robust discussion with several compelling comments.
Several commenters discuss the nuances of IRB review, particularly regarding the definition of "human subjects research." One commenter highlights that the regulations focus on "generalizable knowledge," meaning if the research isn't intended to create new knowledge that can be applied more broadly, it likely doesn't require IRB review. They provide the example of internal quality assurance projects within a company, which generally wouldn't need IRB oversight. This point sparks further discussion about the blurry line between product development and research, with another commenter suggesting that companies often disguise product testing as internal quality assurance to avoid IRB scrutiny.
Another key discussion thread revolves around the practical implications of IRB review, especially for smaller entities and independent researchers. Commenters point out the significant costs and administrative burden associated with the process, potentially hindering valuable research. One commenter mentions the chilling effect this can have on exploring new ideas, arguing that the IRB process is often too rigid and inflexible for rapidly evolving fields.
The issue of informed consent also receives attention. One commenter shares an anecdote about difficulty obtaining proper informed consent from vulnerable populations, illustrating the practical challenges of adhering to ethical guidelines. Another commenter raises concerns about the potential for coercion in research settings, emphasizing the importance of ensuring truly voluntary participation.
There's a brief but interesting exchange about the international variation in IRB regulations, with one commenter noting that the US system is particularly stringent.
Finally, some commenters express frustration with the perceived overreach of IRBs, arguing that they sometimes hinder innovation and impede progress in certain fields. They suggest that a more streamlined and risk-based approach might be more effective.
In summary, the comment section offers a multi-faceted view of IRB approval, touching upon the definition of human subjects research, the practical challenges of IRB review, the ethical considerations of informed consent, international variations in regulations, and the potential for overreach. The commenters' diverse perspectives and real-world experiences contribute to a nuanced understanding of this complex issue.