IRBs have well-documented flaws (for a more comprehensive look, read Laura Stark's book on IRBs [2]) but "IRBs are bad because they say I can't do whatever I want even though it's obviously the right way to do it" is not one of them.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

[2]: http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo1218257...

But what purpose is having a review board made up of people who can think for themselves if their behavior is going to be indistinguishable from a program running through a checklist without any care whatsoever for whether or not the checklist makes sense in that context?

Massive inefficiencies in bureaucracy are always hidden behind the fig leaf of consistency and accountability, but it's worthwhile to consider what aim they serve and at what cost.

This problem was largely solved by the development and acceptance of private IRBs. Going with private IRBs that meet 2x weekly, turn forms around quickly, and are willing to pre-qualify your work - at cost, of course - is the road many researchers take now.

If you are asking the question: "How does this private market solution solve the problem of government/education/medical bureaucracy being inefficient," then I guess it does not solve the root cause. But trying to solve IRB problems involving that three-headed hydra is not likely to succeed. Going around the system is a feasible workaround.

I'm more concerned with the author's insistence that he knew the right way to conduct his study ethically. Peer review is a core scientific principle-- we don't allow researchers to make autonomous judgments about the quality of their work.

Not to mention that the questions were already being asked. He just wanted to ask them earlier to compare against the eventual diagnosis. It's not the kind of study that should have been abandoned in frustration after two years, as happened here.

Edit: more important for the scientific process (rather than privacy) than 'data leakage' is 'data sharing', as yread points out below. Anonymised data can be quickly and safely shared, and others can run their analyses on your results. Non-anonymised data can't be shared. If you're interested in publishing a robust scientific paper, why would you be against opening your data for inspection?

> Not to mention that the questions were already being asked. He just wanted to ask them earlier to compare against the eventual diagnosis. It's not the kind of study that should have been abandoned in frustration after two years, as happened here.

Then he could have just asked them and done his own informal study. Nothing is stopping the doctor from saying "are you happy, then sad?" on first meeting a patient. But if you want to do a formal, publishable study, then you should have all your ducks in a row. Make sure your independent variables are properly controlled, make sure any ethical issues have been externally vetted, so on and so forth.

While the IRB certainly had some annoying concerns, so much of this author's frustration just simply wouldn't be there if he understood why those questions were being asked.

Sure, but the complaints of the IRB mentioned (and the auditor) seem to be far beyond ensuring practice is ethical. Instead, they seem to focus on following process only for the sake of process.

Why should the consent form have the title of the study? Why should the consent form contain a list of risks when there are none? What is wrong with having consent forms signed with pencil when pens aren't allowed. Why should the data integrity plan require periodic review (i.e. why should we have a data integrity plan - integrity plan). These are all indicative of a bureaucratic system that places too much emphasis on 'process', losing sight of 'outcome' in the end.

Reminds me of something that Jeff Bezos (of Amazon.com) wrote in his 2016 Letter to Shareholders:

> Resist Proxies

> As companies get larger and more complex, there’s a tendency to manage to proxies. This comes in many shapes and sizes, and it’s dangerous, subtle, and very Day 2.

> A common example is process as proxy. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, the process can become the thing. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you’re doing the process right. Gulp. It’s not that rare to hear a junior leader defend a bad outcome with something like, “Well, we followed the process.” A more experienced leader will use it as an opportunity to investigate and improve the process. The process is not the thing. It’s always worth asking, do we own the process or does the process own us? In a Day 2 company, you might find it’s the second.

https://www.amazon.com/p/feature/z6o9g6sysxur57t

Sticking to a common set of rules and only deviating when there's very good reason is one way to help protect subjects. What's the 'outcome' here? A doctor wants to do a study. Why is that more important than the rights of the subjects? Yes, everyone who does a study thinks it's going to cure cancer and solve the national debt. They'll promise the moon in order to get their way. These processes are put in place to protect people against poorly-planned studies. And there's no way to know ahead of time that a study is 'trivial' - if you're working on humans, you need to be vetted. "But we already do this to patients anyway" is besides the point; if you let doctors bypass vetting because of that argument, you'd see all sorts of horrific stuff happening. Ethics committees didn't come about because bureaucracy invented them for the sake of it, they came about because people were being unknowingly tested on by medicos who promised that the study was 'beneficial for the common good'.

And what you find distressing is not what other people find distressing. Search for mncharity's comment elsewhere on this page, where people are distressed simply by being asked about viruses. Yeah, sure, that's not typical, but the counterpoint is: is the research beneficial enough to warrant causing distress to people who would otherwise have been left alone?

In short, this 'needless bureaucracy' is there to protect both the institutions and innocent people from researchers going 'rogue'.

There's like 50 wall of text posts in here that don't seem to be understanding that

My major gripe whenever there is a long piece that decries the bureaucracy of various regulatory boards is that the complaints tend to be about how the bureaucracy is a personal inconvenience. Some of the gripes I'll absolutely grant; pen versus pencil and inflexibility for giving potentially violent persons a weapon probably needs some sort of leeway, but I think protectionary measures absolutely should be a brick wall; a surmountable one, sure, but only as a result of you actually trying a bit and demonstrating that your intended actions aren't going to do exactly what the regulation is trying to prevent, and that should be on the researcher using human participants to demonstrate.

The idea of easily avoidable and mutable regulatory functions seems contradictory - that is, a researcher shouldn't be declaring what should and should not apply to them. This isn't fear that they're Hitler and going to inject people with nastiness, it's fear of the dumb mistakes that every human makes and our often poor ability to predict the outcome of certain actions. I get it - they want to help people and the regulations are inconvenient for them; but having gone through many IRB processes myself, it's not insurmountable in the least bit, much less anything the author listed.

In general, most IRBs are there to help out, not to get in the way. It may feel like getting in the way, at the time, but they mostly are there to help.

For example: the wordings of your consent forms. FDA says that they need to be at an 8th grade level, +/- 0.2 grade levels. You can game MS word to get that to an 8.2 grade level but have it be 140+ pages, and a lot of researchers do that. This is especially prevalent in clinical drug trials where many Pharam companies try to make the consent form a contract filled with legalese. That egregious example is non typical, but highlights the issues with consent forms being readable and an actual consent form a person. This is where a decent IRB would help out and tell you that you need to re-write the consent form to be an something that is not gibberish. (Side-note: Most newspapers are written at a 6th grade level it turns out).

Another example is International research. There was a case I heard of where a group was going to go collect HIV data in Tanzania. They were just going to go out and collect blood samples and sexual health questions alongside. The part of Tanzania they were collecting from is rural and believes in very strange medical practices like eating albino people or having sex with virgins to cure HIV, though I forget exactly what. Balancing the local beliefs with data collection can be tricky in that case. Typically, you would like a local IRB in that region, but there was none. So the US based IRB decided that the researchers needed to go out to the religious and government centers in that part of Tanzania and ask them what to do and what questions they could ask, etc. This added a lot of time and expenses to the study to spend in country before data collection, but the US IRB held firm on that. This was a good idea, as the local peoples had a lot of reservations and wanted to see all the data themselves before it was sent out of country, so as to go off and then kill women that were HIV positive. If the US researchers had found this out beforehand, a lot of deaths may have occurred. They subsequently then left off a lot of questions and data gathering.

Researchers are human too and we forget things all the time and have a lot of pressures on us as well. IRBs should be there to help out and not be a road-block. If the IRB you are working with does turn out to be that, talk to other researchers and find if they have the same issues. If you all do, go to the IRB and explain to them that they are unreasonable, most of them do want to know that they are holding things up unnecessarily. If it persists, go to the hospital/university admin as a group and make the case. These advancements need to be triple checked, but they still need to go through to begin with. IRBs are not evil, sclerotic maybe, but not evil. Work hard to get them to be better, we are all in this together.

A patient consenting to being treated doesn't mean they'd consent for that personal information to be used for any other purpose.

From the responses in this thread, it seems HNer's are actually fine with their data being used for secret reasons without their consent, as long as it means less bureaucracy. "How dare you use my data for your own purposes... unless it helps you avoid an inconveniencing committee, then go for it!"

It helps that it's painted as the poor resourceless scientist vs the powerful abusive entity (IRB). Rather than the poor resourceless patient vs the powerful abusive entity (hospital and its staff).

This is the same dynamic that happened in, say, the 1950s with Communism. At that time, the Soviet Union was legitimately scary. They had the world's largest army, an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and were led by a power-mad dictator. It was certainly a wise move to defend against them. But eventually, Communism became a catch-all justification that could be used for any rule or policy, no matter how silly it was. Why, for example, did we need the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Because of communism, even though it didn't help the Western military position at all. Likewise, any challenge to these policies could be dismissed as "naive", "uninformed", or "not taking the threat seriously".

You might argue that there was risk to the patients in the one part of the procedure that was different than what they would experience anyway - the actual asking for consent - but if so, what would you propose doing about it?

You have made a straw man out of this one case, and are defending it with all the dogma displayed by this IRB.

I disagree. Even the one that he makes sound the most ludicrous ("IRB required pens, be we were only allowed to use pencils") can be rephrased as: "Your hospital had reasons to be concerned that patients might stab themselves or someone else with a pen, yet you don't even think of giving them pencils as any sort of risk".

And you say this is the most ludicrous requirement, but it's actually the least. After all it's not entirely the IRB's fault, they didn't ban pens in the hospital.

But it demonstrates exactly what is wrong with bureaucracy. Maybe one bureaucracy with one set of arbitrary rules could be tolerated. But once you have two interacting they can create contradicting and incompatible rules. One bureaucracy bans pens, the other bans pencils, and you end up with a world with no writing implements at all.

I'm sure the regulation sounded entirely reasonable at the time. Someone had to put together a set of rules on how to get consent. And they think pens are supposed to be the proper way of writing a signature, because banks require you to sign checks in pen. Because long ago people would erase checks written in pencil and commit check fraud. At no point did they ever consider the history of that rule or that it doesn't make much sense applied to consent forms. At no point did they ever consider that there might be a hospital somewhere that bans pens for whatever reason.

And I can't blame them, why would they? You can't anticipate every possible edge case. This is a website made up of programmers, we should know that better than anyone. And yet at no point did anyone with common sense come along and make an exemption for that rule. When rules become fixed and inflexible they do things that weren't intended by the rule writers.

And every single thing in the article is like that. Some rule that might not be so bad or make sense in isolation. But combine it with 10,000 other rules, and total weight becomes overwhelming. And as a result you get a bunch of people misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder, and god knows what else since doctors can't do the research necessary to find out.

Or maybe they did?

> At no point did they ever consider that there might be a hospital somewhere that bans pens for whatever reason.

IRBs are part of each research institution. The unspoken implication in OP's story is that the psychiatry department of his hospital had never conducted research with humans before him. At least not any research that required consent. If they had, they would have faced the need for pens. "Requiring IRB review and a consent form" is almost the opposite of an edge case for a research institution.

> Some rule that might not be so bad or make sense in isolation. But combine it with 10,000 other rules, and total weight becomes overwhelming.

I can't really feel that steps like being forced to blind your data, or to store that data somewhere it can't be read by random people, are overwhelming, nor ludicrous, nor indefensible. I understand that learning by hitting walls is frustrating, but those things are proper experimental procedure. Maybe his professors should have had a lecture about them (mine did). Or maybe it was the purpose of that video that he thought was a waste of his time because he's not a Nazi.

> Even the IRB failed to complain or notice this "danger". They never complained that pencils were too dangerous

If I'm reviewing that application and on the risks section I see "paper cuts lol", and the applicant then asks me to allow pencil signatures because pens at his department are a risk, I would conclude he's not taking any of it seriously enough.

I'm pretty sure that it's not any harder to forge a signature when it's made using pen or pencil. It's just a mark that says "I agree." It's not a bank form where the validity of the amount tendered could be called into question.

"Oops, I forgot about presenting my subjects with the consent form and now I've got 100 results collected during a whole year of work.

I definitely don't want to throw all of that work away... But if I contact them and make them sign the form now using pencil, I could erase the date and change it to each subject's day of experiment. Nobody would notice."

Pen raising that barrier. I agree that against an adversary fully committed to fraud it doesn't matter. But that threat model is exceptionally rare, and an IRB can do little about it anyway (e.g. the whole application could be made up, the experiment consisting of something completely different). The realistic threat they fight against is experimenters that don't know better, and think there'd be no harm in their actions.

And this is just me coming up with a possibility in a few minutes. Reality tends to be richer than a single person's imagination.

The fact that I actually agree with you, and think this might work in fact inside of any hospital in the US, says more about the byzantine complexity and scary state of our medical system than anything else.

Because I could totally see 100 people being told they have to sign a thing, while in a hospital, with absolutely no good reason given, ... and all 100 just signing it after some variable x*N amount of huffing, then get on with their day.

It looked like you were giving an alternate phrasing of the IRB's actual argument, not a separate one that also argues in favor of disallowing pencils (as well as the pens they had no problem with).

The requirement wasn't that the code should be next to the data, if I understood it correctly; rather that it be blinded and stored safely. Storing them together was the least-effort way he found of passing the requirement, partially defeating its purpose.

So if anything that's an argument for adding even more requirements to the IRB process in his hospital. Because grad students that feel sufficiently aggravated will do things like that.

You probably will get downvoted because you come across as being entirely dismissive of expertise or thinking that is not your own. I think you general point about the importance of oversight isn't lost on anyone.

Sure but the mockery in that post suggests he either doesn't care about them or thinks they're stupid.

Also do we really have to point out that just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean they have any authority when it comes to medical ethics? I mean, there's hundreds of cases amply demonstrating this even just this decade.

You definitely should be since I have made precisely zero of those claims on this website or any other.

What is the basis for this statement? The author states that there is no oversight or governing body for the IRB. Is this incorrect (and if so, who is it)? If not, then the author's criticism seems apt.

You're not trusting them blindly because any and every ethical protection you decide your procedure needs, will be there. In addition to the ones the IRB thinks need to be there too.

When you implement a workplace safety policy in your company, making it comply with OSHA regulations isn't "blindly trusting authority to decide what is safe". If you think a practice is unsafe, yet OSHA thinks it's safe enough, they're not gonna prevent you from taking more precautions.

Same deal with code reviews. You aren't blindly trusting your colleague to decide what is bad or good code. You're adding their polish to yours.

I don't understand how a medical doctor can write such a simplistic post. Of course your consent forms need to mention that you will access medical data if you look at diagnosis even though they are your patients! You have access to all kinds of data for treating the patient (so called primary use), but you should have the absolute minimal set of attributes for research (secondary use). Who judges whether these attributes are really needed? IRB!

Of course you need to have you paperwork in order. This is not only your paperwork but also the hospital's! If you fuck up the newspapers are gonna carry headlines: doctors in this hospital leaked patients data. Do you think patients will want to come to that hospital?

Of course your investigators need to go through training on research ethics! In fact you should've put them through more training so that they fill in the damn consent forms properly!

Of course you need to separate personally identifiable information from the actual research and encode patient identifiers. Ever heard of publishing your data next to your research? When someone asks for the data from your study and you would forget to scrub it you would leak data. Encoding it and having it in two separate folders in one cabinet makes data sharing simpler. It protects you from making a stupid error.

Of course they can be next to each other in the cabinet. That cabinet is fucking locked! And it's in a hospital next to other private data. The risk is with publishing it!

Of course you need to fill in New Study Application, describe your study design and consent. IRB judges research studies, how would they do it if they didn't have that? You need to describe that stuff when asking for a grant and most studies are funded by grants so for most people it's no extra work.

Of course you need a monitoring plan and study meeting monitoring problems. If you had one you would notice that the newbies were doing a shitty job! Them doing a shitty job is not only bad for you but much more importantly it wastes patient's time! Patient's didn't come to hospital to improve your credentials!

The fact that there is some less than ideal stuff already used doesn't mean that your new study can be shit. That's like being angry about your pull request not getting accepted cause your indentation is all over the place and saying "but your indentation is already inconsistent". If there are style guidelines that's the way to do it. New code needs to follow them. Old stuff might get fixed or not but new stuff should be done according to guidelines.

The people suing you would be the participants, because you would have already harmed them. Not getting sued by them is just a derived benefit of the primary goal of protecting them from you. And the protections extend well beyond what a patient might bother suing you for: it's an ethical committee after all.

> at what cost to less well equipped researchers and at what cost to science itself?

Completely secondary considerations, for very good reasons. Nazis weren't the only ones to harm patients; also well-intentioned scientists that thought of the greater good for science itself, and grad students that lacked resources or equipment.

On the other hand, you clearly can harm people in various ways by or as a result of interviewing them, for example by breaching confidentiality, by being forced to breach confidentiality, or by making them feel bad about themselves by insulting them during the interview or just by bringing up painful and distressing memories. And also it's hard for researchers who aren't doctors to extend the same level of legal protection to what their research subjects tell them:

https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2017/01/social-science-ne...

So maybe one idea would be to create a categorical IRB exemption for studies that combine non-invasive observations, or existing datasets, with interviews not reasonably expected to be distressing to the subjects, and conducted subject to otherwise existing norms on patient confidentiality and medical privacy? (recognizing that limited legal protection for that confidentiality still poses problems for some studies)

(I'm certainly happy to apply the Chesterton's fence principle and learn more about the history of unethical experimentation before seriously advocating this.)

I did some guerrilla street usability testing, of animated science education video fragments.[1] About the size of objects - sort of like Powers of Ten. During red lights at busy street crossings.

Even with a very small test population, I saw people distressed by surprising things.

Mention of millimeters reminded an elderly Brit of unpleasant childhood experiences when learning metric.

A college student expressed distress over a character breaking the head off an (enlarged to arm-sized) T4 bacteriophage.

I had someone run away, across the street, saying "how could you show me something so disgusting!", following a quiet background sound effect, a child's hacking cough, accompanying the word "virus". When I later stopped the video immediately after it to get feedback, most people were "what cough?".

Many people were variously distressed by the mention or discussion of viruses and bacteria. Which I didn't expect, but in retrospect seems unsurprising - for many, they have strong and negative associations. They get very bad press. Think "fun story about viruses!" having the emotional flavor of "fun story about genocide!".

So at this point, I'm unclear on what can reasonably be expected to not distress people.

"How about this nice weather we've been having?"... "Houston has been bringing back painful memories of my family losing its home and business to flooding. :(" Somewhat tongue in cheek, but if you are aiming for do no harm...?

[1] There are some bits of the test videos in the "How to remember sizes" section of http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/Atoms .

There is often more value in science existing than in some marginal perceived harms incurred from a handful of people getting interviewed. Your emotional wellbeing is your responsibility, not the responsibility of the people around you.

And on a personal level, we don't grow from being comfortable. The opposite - we grow through discomfort. We grow through facing our demons and realising that they don't actually kill us.

As you frolick in the summer waves, every cup of seawater is war zone, filled with massive and deadly warfare between bacteria and viruses. Ten billion combatants. Bacteria shedding extracellular vesicles like anti-missile flares. Mass dumping of chemical weapons. Suicidal sacrifices. Exploding victims. 2 day bacterial survival - 50%. And most, they haven't been cultured, haven't been sequenced - we haven't even given them names.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard...

I guess that's technically "just talk" but it's not what most people would think of as "just talk".

Though ENCORE was done with IRB approval, the community is mostly unsure how that was possible...

Edit: although I don't think they change my intuition that it's strange that high-risk invasive procedures that people expected to cause grave injury are dealt with by the same oversight mechanism as interviews (even though I'm very convinced of the ethical importance of strong confidentiality protections for interviews).

Second edit: I'm also aware that IRBs aren't only inspired by Tuskegee and Nazi experiments, but also by stuff like the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments which didn't involve invasive interventions.

Though, every IRB is different. Which is another problem!

1. People who should have been treated weren't.

2. As a result of #1, more people would have been subsequently infected.

Additionally:

3. Distrust in healthcare is engendered amongst a marginalized population, with potential to lead to further incidences of undiagnosed ailments.

The net result is similar, more people are infected than would otherwise have been. Just because the infection mechanism is less obvious doesn't necessarily make it less bad.

(1) The study title doesn't work at the top of the form? Change it! Surely there is some other arrangement of English words that would satisfy both the author and IRB.

(2) They leave the risk section blank because minimal risk, and then complain about the requirement for pens because the patients might stab themselves if given pens. Looks to me like they didn't spend much effort thinking about risks to the patient. If they had just mentioned the pen stabby thing as a risk factor, and given "don't use pens" as a risk minimization plan, they wouldn't have had a problem.

(3) They poopoo the training because Hitler, and then get upset when they unknowingly violate a personnel rule that is most definitely covered in any decent IRB/GCP training.

I could go on, but every new thing I enumerate makes me angrier. Life is too short. Look. IRB applications suck, but human experimentation is serious business.

The rules aren't there to make the study easy, the are there to (a) look out for the patient (respect), (b) evaluate risk and benefits of the study (beneficence), and (c) ensure that the benefits are distributed to the group bearing the risk (justice).

A) Instead of actually looking out of the patient a list of arbitrary rules were imposed.

B) The risk (minimal) was not properly evaluated but instead massively overstated.

Given this failure of the process to meet said goals it seems perfectly reasonable to question the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report

(B) Is experimentation on suicidal patients really minimal risk? Maybe, maybe not. But failure of the investigator to show they have thought about it is a huge red flag.

(B) We're not talking about injecting the patients with some experimental drug here. We're talking about asking them questions that they were already being asked anyways. The lack of risk is self evident to anyone who considers the question.

Even the author disagrees with you (and, oddly, himself):

From the article:

> Also, psychiatric patients are sometimes…how can I put this nicely?…a little paranoid. Sometimes you can offer them breakfast and they’ll accuse you of trying to poison them. I had no illusions that I would get every single patient to consent to this study, but I felt like I could at least avoid handing them a paper saying “BY THE WAY, THIS STUDY IS FULL OF RISKS”.

If merely offering breakfast has a reasonable chance of getting re-interpreted as offering poison, offering a consent form for a test the purpose of which cannot be revealed before it is given certainly has a nonzero chance of triggering some kind of similar episode. So the risk of having such patients sign a consent form isn't zero, as the author somehow implies everywhere except this paragraph. Thus it should have been written into the risks section.

The IRB requires getting informed consent from the patient. This is not unreasonable. In fact, IMO, experimenting on people and then publishing the results of those experiments without prior informed consent is grossly unreasonable and creepy.

Parent's point is that the author concedes that in a psych ward context, even asking for consent carries serious risks. I'm not sure if this is true because I have no personal experience, but the author seems to believe it is true.

Look, it sucks that doing any research in a psych ward carries substantial risk. But that doesn't mean that you can perform experiments on psych patients without their informed consent. Even if you think that the experiment is NBD. Guess what? You're not the patient and it's not your medical data, so it's not your call. Insisting otherwise is incredibly disrespectful and dehumanizing toward psych ward patients. They are humans, they have rights, and an inconvenienced researcher is not a reasonable justification for nullifying those rights.

Are there aspects of IRBs that are infuriating and unnecessary? Absolutely. But requiring informed consent before medical data is used in a non-treatment context is -- and should be -- a basic right afforded to every patient. Even psych patients.

I hate IRBs, especially for questionnaires, and especially the stupid training. But posts like yours convince me that both are sadly necessary.

(B) Is the lack of risk really self-evident? To everyone? Or just to you? Thus the question who should decide? And by what process do they decide?

This is one of the core flaws in bereuacracy, looking at the putative benefits of a policy without considering the costs. No one really denies that some oversight is needed, the question is, is this oversight needed?

I'm just saying that in this case the people tasked with doing the reviewing did a really bad job. And it seems like, from other things I've read, this sort of bad job isn't exactly uncommon. It would be great if the people in charge of this stuff could reform the system so that IRBs did a bad job less often.

Sometimes. When you just ask a few simple questions, it clearly isn't.

Your list of the benefits of IRBs looks valid. But without a corresponding set of costs to weigh them against, it's meaningless.

The question is who decides and how they make the decision? Surely it should involve someone other than the investigator, and have clearly defined rules so people know what to expect. Hence the IRB.

Putting a patient at risk to treat them (e.g. chemotherapy) is very different than putting them at risk to get data for a publication or NDA. There's no reason what's tolerable in one context should be in the other.

The author complains of the IRB not doing Methods 101. Perhaps the author should have done Methods 201, then he would understand the concerns (which many human experimenters in this thread have elaborated on). As stated elsewhere, so many of the author's wounds are self-inflicted.

Sure, he could have spent a lot of time and effort to learn and adapt to the broken system, and his study would have been done, and fewer people would perhaps be misdiagnosed.

But the point is that it shouldn't be this hard to make the world a better place.

It's actually been pretty disturbing to read this whole thread. So many HNers who complain endlessly about the relatively trivial metadata that corporations collect on us and sell, they would quite happily get rid of this committee that ensures any studies done on them meet minimum ethical requirements and ensure that subjects know that they're being tested on.

Read the responses in this thread from other people who have done studies on humans that requires passing through one of these committees. Actual people who know what they're for rather than armchair critics. All of them present the same opinion: IRB's are annoying and sometimes a little frustrating, but thank god they're there, because they protect the public. Every researcher is going to claim that their study will cure cancer, but not every researcher is being truthful (because they're humans, after all), and plenty of researchers don't care if they hurt their subjects in order to add a feather to their caps.

It may be inconvenient, but advancing human knowledge does require that humans use their capacity to reason and examine circumstances on an individual basis rather than mindlessly checking boxes on some one-size-fits-all form.

The incentive for the IRB is to be as thorough and put up as many obstacles as possible. Both from a blame deflection standpoint and a bureaucratic empire building standpoint.

I'm not aware of any force pushing in the other direction to make the scrutiny proportional to the risk.

If this is true - and I'm just some programmer reading stuff on the web who knows little of real life IRBs - the end result is a system that overproduces IRB red tape and underproduces science.

Of course, complaining about a system is easy. Figuring out a better system is not.

Each research institution has its own IRB, which I expect is composed by faculty/researchers. The have an incentive not to block their own institution from producing any research output whatsoever.

Same thing applies here. In one case the questions are being asked to provide treatment the patient is paying for. In the other it's being done to collect data for a publication.

If my mechanic wants to publish a paper on wear-and-tear on 4 cylinder engines using just the information he gleaned from doing work on cars that I (and others) paid him for, he has caused zero damage to me versus just doing the work on my car.

The same applies here. Patients come in for treatment, and they provide exactly the same questions as if they weren't doing research.

I agree, though, that this study could have been done more easily by accessing the patients' records post-facto. But it's not the IRB's fault that the experiment could have been designed better.

[edit]

Also it seems that post-facto experiments are being encouraged over controlled trials, which seems the opposite of what you want from an experimenters point of view.

(Yeah, pretty sure is the the deepest pit of hell)

Yes I am aware of trauma caused to people in not just Nazi experiments but in many post-war studies (many of which were of dubious value). It seems like at some point we should decide one of the following:

A) Psychology has the potential to significantly alleviate suffering, so it's worth a risk of small harms in order to collect good data.

B) Psychology doesn't have the potential to significantly alleviate suffering, so we shouldn't do any of these studies.

Incidentally, I recall it being much less painful than this, at least to get to the approval step. I would expect that each IRB varies greatly from group to group.

Public hearing means, that poor guy has to go there in case the public has questions. He filled out everything, so he had to go to the anti-corruption board and the nuclear safety commission and so on. After roughly three weeks of him whining that he always sits there like an idiot, I got curious and came along to one of the hearings, definitely for some reason other than watching him sit there like an idiot, or so I claim.

That was the animal cruelty (against) commission and at the hearing were the committee, a very nervous working group, one unhappy postdoc and a grad student who just wants to watch the show. The PI of the working group then gave a presentation on the sad reality, that you can't study pain receptors if you anesthetize the mouse. (Apparently that was not the first time they were there, so I got just the part on why they are certain that there is really no way to get a statistical meaningful result with less mice.)

Really drove home the point that these procedures are not designed for the convenience of theoretical physicist, but are designed to tackle really hard problems.

Perhaps we should or could start caring, but we definitely do not even acknowledge there being a meaningful question there in any other element of human life.

Animal research is often regulated under a framework, just not the IRB. My training was pretty clear on that.

My understanding is the less you look like a human in the grand scheme of things, the more unspeakable crap we're comfortable with doing to you.

  “YOU LET PEOPLE SIGN CONSENT FORMS IN 
   PENCIL, HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THAT?!”

Knowing this, the pencil signature actually protects the patient more than the institution, since the patient could theoretically forge a revocation of consent by erasing their mark. Meanwhile, ink isn't as binding, without some sort of objective third-party official (e.g. a notary public, beholden neither to patient nor to institution) serving as formal witness, further validating a non-forgery, in the case of a simple 'X' or erasure thereof.

In practical terms, one solution to render the pencil signature binding would be to create a tamper-evident photocopy, with fraud-marks like a UUID moire pattern sprayed by an ordinary desktop printer, for each serialized document, readily detectable in the photocopy but permanently printed into the background of the form (e.g. yes, this is a photocopy of the same piece of paper, and the forger failed to notice the lightly tinted pattern, when erasing their signature), and retain the pencil copy, to ensure a match. In the event of an erasure, the paper might show an abrasion, and the photocopy would act as a snapshot/backup.

Meanwhile, it should be possible to access existing, archived, historical questionnaires and actual clinical diagnoses from normal records, in a de-identified fashion, and compare results, no?

Am I misunderstanding the goal of the study? Didn't he want to compare the assessment of the survey, with actual patient dispositions, and leave the rest of all treatment untouched, undisturbed and otherwise normal? Ask the questions, do the rest, same as ever, but analyze the opinion formed by the score of the answers to the questions, with the opinion of the professional caregiver beyond the scope of the simple Q&A exam?

http://khn.org/news/offshore-rush-for-herpes-vaccine-roils-d...

"Neither the Food and Drug Administration nor a safety panel known as an institutional review board, or an IRB, monitored the testing of a vaccine its creators say prevents herpes outbreaks. Most of the 20 participants were Americans with herpes who were flown to the island several times to be vaccinated, according to Rational Vaccines, the company that oversaw the trial."

As the people doing that one argue, there is an argument for balancing the risks of the test against the risk to suffers of illness and the like of not doing the tests.

1 - Do you think this story indicates a success or a failure of the IRB?

2 - Would you rather a better expedited review process AND more studies (remember the personal effort cost killed this study), neither, or do you see some 3rd option?

2. I believe this study could have been done with much less personal effort. His hypothesis is the screening question leads to unwarranted diagnosis. He already had Dr. W. convinced that it's plausible, and willing to do full diagnosis to his patients. And he had other doctors that would only use the screening question. All that's required to refute the null hypothesis is compare the rate of "yes" vs "no" in the set of Dr. W's diagnoses, with the rate of the doctors that just use the screening question. If his hypothesis is true, the other doctors would get more positives. That's 1 bit of information he had to extract anonymously from the patients' existing records, which is a strict subset of the methodology he developed for the study.

As another example, if you have a ten-question survey, asking 1000 people one question is not the same as asking 100 people all ten questions. You don't learn nearly as much about the correlation between answers to different questions.

You need more subjects to attain the same statistical power, but the data is much easier to obtain. 100 subjects already sounded like overkill anyway.

Failure of the IRB but mostly failure of the author to explore his options.

>>Would you rather a better expedited review process AND more studies (remember the personal effort cost killed this study), neither, or do you see some 3rd option?

As I've posted in this thread, this problem is solved. Private IRBs exist that are much more responsive.

None.

Now, if you asked a question without assuming what you think I was saying, I'd tell you that Alexander's other options were to not use the IRB that he went to, and to explore the private marketplace of IRB organizations that provide much better service than the nightmare he dealt with - a very common practice in all fields.

This is, frankly, ridiculous. The 50-70% overhead the university takes from every grant already pays for one IRB. If that one isn't working, the solution is not to tap in (almost inevitably tight) research funds to pay for a second for-profit one instead.

Given how hard it is to charge things like computers to grants, I'm actually amazed this is even allowed.

I am curious: How much do you think private IRB engagement costs?

"But Matt", you'll say, "Isn't that a drop in the bucket compared to an R01 (a few hundred thousand/year), let alone a big program project grant? Why not spend a bit more to start data collection sooner?"

This is a pretty tempting proposal. However, I think this analysis almost misses the point. Programs run by people who can land big grants usually involve someone who already knows how to navigate the IRB process and can get things approved relatively quickly.

However, small or pilot projects tend to get bogged down, since the proposers have much less experience with the process, as in the article--and my own experience). These is especially true for people like the author, who aren't "full-time" human subjects researchers. The article didn't mention the projects' budget, but I would bet that if it wasn't zero, it was close to it (especially after covering salaries, etc). Even $1000 is going to be prohibitively expensive for many of these projects.

More philosophically, I think overseeing research is part of a university's job (and, as I complained above), one that is already paid for via overhead. There's also something vaguely worrying about the incentives of a for-profit IRB.

Our IRB cost is 10% of that, or less, depending on the number you are choosing for "few." Maybe if you used WIRB or another IRB that is specific for drug trials, yes, it can run that expensive. For run of the mill published papers, no, you should not be using services like that.

>>There's also something vaguely worrying about the incentives of a for-profit IRB.

This would imply any reviewer or journal actually checks IRB qualifications on submission, review, or referee. Devor et al in the JSCR/Ohio State case and all the reviewers coming out as a result of that and saying they don't check IRB shows that it is anything but. Again, this isn't true for drug trials, but for expedited review minimal risk studies, there is no reason to be using bureaucratic and slow moving IRB providers.

EDIT:

>>Even $1000 is going to be prohibitively expensive for many of these projects.

There are many IRB providers who do expedited review, minimal-risk, standard studies for less than half of this cost.

EDIT2:

>>I think overseeing research is part of a university's job (and, as I complained above), one that is already paid for via overhead.

Sure. I'm not going to argue against the idea that the government or the university should do their jobs that they were paid to do. But they regularly and demonstrably do not, in far more fields than IRB. Private markets exist to go around this bureaucracy. IRB is no different.

And how does "I skipped our free IRB and paid this third-party IRB because they're laxer" really look to the department?

>>And how does "I skipped our free IRB and paid this third-party IRB because they're laxer" really look to the department?

In my experience the third-party IRB orgs are not more lax, they are just faster at turning things around. Alexander's article bemoans primarily the time it took to get all these decisions made, which private IRBs would be on top of. I got my rejections of consent forms within 24 hours and get my docs pre-qualified over the phone after submission and discussion with reps. Try that at your local university's IRB. Alexander also has complaints about the questions and methods, but they're mostly unfounded. The study title aspect is important, the signing in pencil is not really relevant (I get his complaint but most industries don't allow contracts signed in pencil), and the transfer of the study to a new investigator unannounced is a huge breach of procedure and he's lucky that all the IRB asked was for a submission of a new investigator. Usually it is much more arduous.

IRB simply controls the ethics and the informed consent documents and has the right to audit materials and process at any time to ensure you stay up on these things. Beyond that, it doesn't do much. When you submit your paper to a peer-reviewed journal (some who don't even need IRB approval, just an ethics statement, mind you), they don't call your IRB provider and reference check you.

Ohio State researchers published a fraudulent article about CrossFit years ago in the JSCR, which is considered a very prestigious exercise science journal.

http://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/02/journal-retracts-ohio-...

Devor stated they had IRB approval. In actuality, they did not. CrossFit sued NSCA (parent org of JSCR) and won lawyer's fees, and Ohio State settled with CrossFit for six figures for damages due to false publications.

IRB is a mere formality in today's landscape. You just need to get it out of the way. It's not like journals are cross-checking your IRB applications, they just want to see the approval that you put in there. And hell, if you're like Ohio State researchers (and probably many more), you can just lie about it.

@icelander, have you ever successfully charged these third-party IRB fees to a grant?

Shopping for a better IRB isn't a systematic solution, it's a workaround for a system of flawed IRBs.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/bucking-fda-peter-th...

I wish the author took more seriously the warnings around patient health and safety. Yes, they may not apply to his particular project, but that doesn't make asking about them useless. To take past abuses lightly undermines his overall point.

It's done precisely to avoid a situation like the way he delegated responsibility to his PI: "Dr. W had vaguely hoped that I was taking care of it. I had vaguely hoped that Dr. W was taking care of it." The review board shouldn't make vague assumptions about something as critical and necessary as ethical study design.

I'm not sure whether the global cost of IRBs outweighs the benefits. But I'm pretty sure that the sort of regulatory changes OHRP proposed (mentioned in the linked NYT article), where studies like mine with minimal possible risk are exempted from IRB requirements, seem good and important.

I also wonder whether it's possible to monitor even the scary studies with lots of potential risks - like the herpes vaccine trial you link to - with a little more common sense and a little bit less insistence on everything being signed in pen.

Well, except when they are paid per review in which case they just rubber-stamp everything.

My university requires official approval and a full process even to apply for a small non-institutional grant. I was going to apply for that tiny little AI Grant that was posted on here a while back, then I concluded that the rules probably would require me to get approval to apply for that. So I said "fuck it."

In my own opinion the author is quite correct in classifying the medical benefits to the subjects (practically speaking, zero; equivalent to talking with any random untrained individual), and to future patients (potentially great benefits).

The risks seem to be much more closely associated with accidentally exposing patient information. This is the section that their study protocols (at least what was described in overview) need review and revision.

The unblinding documentation should be kept in a secured, designated area. A safe with a very limited ACL would be ideal. Unblinding information could be either the consent forms with the unique non-PII ID information on them or a list for matching unique non-PII IDs to (hard copies of) existing patient record stubs attached to the consent forms.

If possible the study should have actually been designed to use as much of the already collected data as possible, and possibly ask the small additional information of all, but not record the answers (or destroy the collected information if they do not consent). Hypothetically they could be asked if they consent anonymously providing some of the questions they were already asked to an informational medical research study. If you ask them for consent AFTER having asked (and gotten answers on) the questions, then you're even actually safe to tell them which data are being collected (what their answers were as well) and what you're attempting to study.

I believe that the above is the most ethical way of designing this type of study, and that it sounds similar to a term I've heard professionals in this field use 'retrospective study' (collecting study data based on previously collected medical data).

It's just good hygiene to have the non-sensitive data isolated from the sensitive stuff.

Identifying information belongs under lock and key, or at least forcing a user to authenticate again (even if by literal physical key-fob/ID card) (and should for the hospital too).

Answers to questions which can't be classified as the above can be associated with a fully synthetic ID that works as a pointer to the above. That makes them less sensitive (but still important to keep secure: E.G. they could be in the office which is always locked when un-occupied and don't have to be stored in the safe).

Practicing this discipline also makes it less likely for researchers and writers to inadvertently leak patient data. I'm actually shocked at how often hospitals / clinics / etc don't practice similar division of data by storage requirement.

Just because they couldn't use the online (clinical) chart to store research data doesn't mean that the data that backs the clinical chart application is stored in any less secure way. There are very specific methods that are used to store PHI electronically. The fact that the clinicians (who needed access) could access it doesn't mean it wasn't stored securely -- they were supposed to have access to it.

In all clinical research there is a clear separation between clinical (as in, used for treatment) and research (as in, should never be used for treatment) data. When you try to hit that gray in-between area is when you start to have issues with IRBs. In particular, when you are both the treating physician and the researcher, you have to be particularly careful about keeping the two sides separate. There is no way anyone should be allowed to store research data in the clinical record -- even if the researchers otherwise have access to the clinical chart.

Also -- it should be mentioned that not all study data is automatically PHI. In fact, most of it shouldn't be. Once it's been de-identified, then the data isn't PHI any more and can be more freely used for research. This is why there is so much emphasis on the security for storing the "unblinding" documentation.

All of this being said, though, it was/is a great experience to have under my belt. And, next time, I'll be able to tackle the regulatory hurdles with far less confusion.

Our first IC forms got banged multiple times for the same reasons his did. And it’s annoying as shit. But my ethical training focused not on something stupid like Nazis, but something real like American scientists unethically hiding treatment from diseases they were studying, like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (the actual reason IRB exists as is). Or the Milgram Experiment. Etc.

A lot of IRB review is stupid. But messing with human subjects doesn’t have a good track record in this country. Our predecessors earned every bit of bureaucracy and oversight based on their absurd experiments. Such is life.

- "It's no big deal because you can just pay off someone's who's in the know and can work the system rather than read the rules at face value."

- "No amount of kafkaesque absurdity is too much, because Nazis."

>"What SSC should have investigated and wrote up is that hospital and medical IRB is fraught with bureaucracy and that a private IRB industry has developed, entities inside that handle wide ranges of studies and turn around informed consent docs and things very fast (within a week).

That is, even though Alexander had a long wait time just to hear responses, there are expensive services you can use that make all that wait time and pushback from hidden rules disappear, so you don't see it as a problem.

For the second one:

>A lot of IRB review is stupid. But messing with human subjects doesn’t have a good track record in this country. Our predecessors earned every bit of bureaucracy and oversight based on their absurd experiments. Such is life.

You don't show a standard for the upper bound on when the absurdity is too much, dismissing any such concerns with appeal to some historical atrocities.

You can make the wait time disappear. In my experience, you cannot make the pushback disappear. I've been scolded multiple times by our IRB for improper and too-technical language in our Informed Consent forms, amongst other violations/gaffes.

IRB is poorly-designed. Should it go away? Sure, in its current incarnation, yes. Will it? Like anything government + university designed, there is a snowball's chance in hell that anything with that many moving parts and bureaucracy will ever die a true death.

The private markets designed a workaround for this and they are accepted as every bit as good as the university and medical IRBs.

As far as "expensive," your time is valuable if you are a scientist. You should act accordingly. The IRB fees we pay are less than 7% of the fee it costs to publish in major peer-reviewed journals, which is another racket that is propped up by the government + university complex. So I don't consider it expensive in the least. (It is well under $500, to give you a hard number.)

So, you agree with my points then?

>As far as "expensive," your time is valuable if you are a scientist. You should act accordingly.

I didn't say otherwise, and that's not relevant to Alexander's claim that the many of the standards are excessive and not merited.

> Amateur. What you do is you sweet talk the clinicians into using their medical judgement to adopt the form as part of their routine clinical practice and get them to include it as part of the patient's medical records. Later... you approach the IRB for a retrospective chart review study and get blessed with waived consent. Bonus: very likely to also get expedited review.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6wtylk/my_i...

"When you break the big laws, you do not get liberty; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws."

(The opposite wisdom is probably grandma's ham [1]. Consider that if grandma had passed away, they might never be allowed to try cooking the whole ham.)

I quite enjoyed that blog post, btw.

[1]: http://www.angelfire.com/ma/artemis9/humor/joke7.html

Grandma's ham is a great example. It might have been some subtle trichinosis-related failure case that cutting the end off a ham reliably prevents, and it's a shame we had to lose your great-uncle Joe to find out about that. Or it might have been an issue of pan length. You can't know until you ask, so you ask if you can. If you can't ask, then sure, you do the best you can with what you have - I should like to hope there are no blind dogmatists here. But if you can ask, you'd be a fool not to.

Perhaps you just have more faith in people to behave reasonably than I do.

I love it! You can’t fight mindless rule followers with logic or reason. You need to use even more detailed rule-following. This is true in every bureaucracy where checklists have replaced good judgment.

My own group (at a research center attached to a university school of medicine) has switched our focus from helping PIs with clinical data management and applications to helping manage research samples and sample processing, mainly by doing housekeeping around genomic processing across different lab teams.

It's kind of hard to convey just how much I would warn devs away from healthcare and healthcare research IT gigs.

Top comment there right now:

"Amateur. What you do is you sweet talk the clinicians into using their medical judgement to adopt the form as part of their routine clinical practice and get them to include it as part of the patient's medical records. Later... you approach the IRB for a retrospective chart review study and get blessed with waived consent. Bonus: very likely to also get expedited review."

Which is an extremely clever "hack" (in the way we like to use it on HN) of the IRB setup.

They demand that you reveal what the study is on and sign in pen? Because the Nazis didn't disclose that stuff and get signatures?

It's not like the patient will go bonkers stabbing-crazy the millisecond their flesh touches a pen.

The author keeps on bringing up nazis and suggests he knows about study methods, when it's clear he's pretty clueless about doing studies. Several of the "this is stupid" questions really aren't that stupid, given that these are generic forms for any study. Why the fuck do you care if you're being asked if you're removing organs? Just tick 'no' and move on to the next question. Does the author also complain that other genders are selectable on online forms, and not just his own gender - after all, it's equally useless information? The setup to the story is: 'waaah, this application form isn't tailored exclusively to MY study'.

I ran into problems with ethics committees myself when doing an (aborted) PhD that caused significant needless delays. They're annoying as hell, I agree, and there are some genuine complaints in the article, but most of what the author is complaining about makes it clear that he doesn't understand the point of the questions posed.

//edit: I only just got to this section of the article, but it feels good to include as a counter-example.

> During that year, Dr. W and I worked together on two less ambitious studies, carefully designed not to require any contact with the IRB. One was a case report, the other used publicly available data.

> They won 1st and 2nd prize at a regional research competition. I got some nice certificates for my wall and a little prize money. I went on to present one of them at the national meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, a friend helped me write it up formally, and it was recently accepted for publication by a medium-tier journal.

> I say this not to boast, but to protest that I’m not as much of a loser as my story probably makes me sound. I’m capable of doing research, I think I have something to contribute to Science. I still think the bipolar screening test sucks, and I still think that patients are being harmed by people’s reliance on it. I still think somebody should look into it and publish the results.

The biggest example for me is Meditations on Moloch, which is the only thing that's ever made me deeply question my libertarianism. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

"I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" is a depressing piece on American politics. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

My original comment is not the best, it was a kneejerk reaction. I'm not representing the fandom well. :-/

Practically, there are two issues with which the IRB is concerned. 1) Protection of particpants 2) Protection of the Institution from litigation by participants.

Realizing the second oft unspoken goal can help you manage the IRB process