Re: IRB's Gone Wild?

[Marie Helweg-Larsen]

I think we all agree that doing high quality research is important. We should all design research without confounds, using valid and reliable measures, add to the scientific literature in important ways, etc. My point is that it is not the job of the IRB to make sure these things happen. The job of the IRB is to make sure participants are not harmed while participating in research.  I think it is a stretch to argue that participants are harmed by wasting their time (in fact, then much education and work are harmful). Marie Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote: We will have to disagree here completely. It is the job of the IRB to decide on the quality of research if the quality shifts the balance of cost/benefit to cost. Participants do give up theri time and energy and are not often compensated. Most subject pools use a genteel form of coercion that we leave a blind eye to--do this 3 of 5 times per semester or do a much more onerous task, or don't pass the course. Let's be real. Most students do not want to participate in research but most intro psych students have to, or they have to do article reviews or some such nonsense. I don't think IRBs are too powerful at all. You need to sit on an IRB for a couple of years to see what comes before committees to get a real sense of what confounded garbage often makes it way to us. As chair I am often the only one reading the vast majority of studies and I have say I have seen some truly terrible proposals. It has changed my perspective completely. I think unless you have had the experience of this you might not understand the perspective of those who have see truly horribly confounded studies come before them. There is also a real danger to the understanding of science that comes from people participating in bad studies. Annette Quoting "Christopher D. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote: As chair of our IRB I have sometimes done the same thing, especially if the measures send up a red flag somehow. If the measures are reliable and valid then this is an extremely easy task. If they are not, then even in a minimum risk study you are abusing your participants if you are asking them to give up their time and energy on a useless task. Who "gives up" their time and energy? Participants are usually compensated for their time and energy. Participants don't "give up" time and energy any more than other employees do (and surely, as employees ourselves, we know how much "useless" work employees are asked to do). It isn't (or, rather, shouldn't be, given the absurd amount of power that IRBs have been given of late) for the IRB to pre-empt of the editorial process by attempting to pass judgment on the quality of research methodology. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ============================ . --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ********************************************* Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Dickinson College, P.O. Box 1773 Carlisle, PA 17013 Office: (717) 245-1562, Fax: (717) 245-1971 Webpage: www.dickinson.edu/~helwegm ********************************************* --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]