jeffrey cohen more argument without

Jeffrey Cohen: More Argument Without Evidence

In a new posting on his blog, Jeffrey Cohen writes,

One of the major propositions that the critics of IRB review of

social research put forth is that minimal risk social research with

competent adults should be completely exempt from IRB review. On

the surface, this makes some sense. We're talking about research

that is unlikely to harm anyone and where adults can decide for

themselves whether to participate. Why do we need to review such

research? Based on my experience personally reviewing thousands of

research protocols in the social sciences, there is one basic

problem with this - researchers are human beings. Human beings are

not perfect - they overlook things, make mistakes and and can't be

totally objective about their own work. If researchers were

perfect, if they always took all of the ethical issues into account

when planning and conducting their research, then we wouldn't need

IRB review. But they are not perfect - none of us are perfect. So,

every research activity needs an independent, objective review.

Characteristically, Cohen offers not a single example of a social

research project whose ethical content was improved by his or any IRB

review, much less one that could only be improved thanks to the broad

definitions and coercive rules now used by IRBs. (And no, forcing

interviewers to carry lists of mental-health centers doesn't count.)

If he has such examples, he should offer them. If not, a vague

reference to "thousands of research protocols" is unlikely to persuade

a community of scholars trained to think critically and to weigh

evidence.