> If the author thinks that ethics review is "Blindly trusting authority to make our ethical decisions for us", then he clearly doesn't understand what ethics review is or how it works.
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.
Not the parent, but I reached that same conclusion.
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.
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.