Ethics of Human Subjects
Apr 7, 2007, 10:39p - Ethics
As I've been considering grad school, I've gotten curious about the rules that regulate experiments involving humans. Specifically, I've been concerned that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) (a) unnecessarily slow-down the pace of research and (b) prevent reasonable experiments from occurring at all. I've heard numerous horror-stories (one detailed below), and though I don't know exactly what research I want to ... more »
Read comments (3) - Comment
omar
- Apr 8, 2007, 11:31a
nikhil, two things. first, why do some societies forbid prostitution, and not others? while this may be seen as a somewhat extreme example, i think you can connect this idea with what's happening with IRBs. there's a combination of two things: what is believed to be reprehensible, and what is believed to negatively effect both the participants and the society at large.
on the level of the participants, IRBs are supposed to be advocates and protectors of the people who are participating in the experiment. you say that an experimenter should explain everything to the participant, give them all the information, and make sure they are adequately, and hopefully completely, informed.. but how do we know that the participant can adequately gauge the risk? sometimes people need help at this, and i don't see the experimenters as necessarily having the best interests of the participants in mind. that's why they need a special advocate. i think the restrictiveness of the rules is partly pragmatic: can they really ensure that every participant is adequately informed and understands their rights? probably not, so restrict experiments to such a degree that even if the participant agrees to something that they don't fully understand, the potential risk is still quite low.
hmm, that's likely the goal, but as you point out, the implementation seems to be lacking. part of being a participant advocate is putting the experimenter through all the required hoops to make sure they are, as much as is reasonable, considering the participant and the possible effects on the participant. but it certainly sounds like in some instances the IRBs do nothing for either the participants or the experimenters. and that's unfortunate.
jessica
- Apr 9, 2007, 9:38p
sounding more libertarian every day...
nikhil
- Apr 23, 2007, 5:26p
Just to be clear - I'm advocating that there be 2 routes to research approval:
1) If you're going to pay your participants, use the IRB process
2) If you aren't going to pay your participants, you're approved!
Ethics of Stem Cell Research
May 21, 2005, 4:01p - Ethics
With the development of technology to create personalized stem cells, we'll soon be able to order personalized organs that are virtually identical to our own. If you suffer from kidney failure and you need a new kidney, you'll no longer have to spend a year on a waiting list hoping for a donor organ, which your body may very ... more »
Read comments (1) - Comment
Gokul Rajan
- Nov 21, 2010, 8:34a
hey! what you are talking about here is embryonic stem cell... but we can get stem cells from bone marrow and umbical cord too... Infact, these days stems cells can also be obtained from menstrual blood and peripheral blood also.. in all these methods we need not destroy an embryo to get stem cells... so these ethical questions don't arise! stem cell is really a breakthrough in regenerative medicine!! and we cannot afford to loose this technique cos of some silly ethical issues!!!
|