All- It seems to me that we are missing the point just a bit. First, the IRB has clearly stepped out of its intended purpose as I've ever seen it stated. I'd look at their charge (or mission statement or whatever it is called there). And, as I think others have pointed out, they are completely wrong about the research design questions and you can get that source from ANY textbook on research design in psychology. (Provide the references with your appeal to the chair or however that works there).
That's what leads me to my second conclusion. I strongly suspect this isn't from the IRB (as a whole) but is expedited, since it involves a class (At least that would be the case here). Thus whoever got the "case" imposed their own view (and I sure hope it isn't the chair!). I'd ask for a clarification but I'd remind the chair in the specific words of your IRB's charge, etc. that they are stepping outside the normal purpose of the committee. (BTW- As an IRB member who has been involved since ours started, I'd suggest you reserve the furious for some bigger battle. I doubt it will do much to make your case- especially when you are so clearly in the right. Not to say that, given what we've been told, I wouldn't reserve the right to a bit of private righteous indignation!) Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Albertson College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "it is not enough these days to simply QUESTION AUTHORITY. You have to speak with it, too." - Taylor Mali -----Original Message----- From: David Epstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 10/14/2007 11:15 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE:[tips] IRB On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Marc Carter went: > My major concern would be that the IRB is stepping into issues that > don't concern it -- it's not the job of an IRB to meddle with issues > of design that do not impact the rights and welfare of the > participants. I'm on an IRB, and I side with the school of thought that says a badly designed study is less ethical than a well-designed study because, as the science deteriorates, the risk:benefit ratio approaches infinity. So I have no problem with an IRB's dispensing scientific suggestions. I see it as another layer of quality control, and I'm grateful if it improves one of my own studies. However, in cases like this, where the IRB apparently doesn't know what it's talking about, I feel that there should be a mechanism available for a smackdown (or, you know, an appeals process, to phrase it more politely). The absence of such a mechanism was the subject of a fascinatingly bitter little symposium at this year's APA (presentation titles included "IRBs as Bioethical Industrial Waste for Both Research and Society"). --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ---
<<winmail.dat>>
