| Title | : | Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009 |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0801894905 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780801894909 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 264 |
| Publication | : | First published July 29, 2010 |
Zachary M. Schrag draws on original research and interviews with the key shapers of the institutional review board regime to raise important points about the effect of the IRB process on scholarship. He explores the origins and the application of these regulations and analyzes how the rules—initially crafted to protect the health and privacy of the human subjects of medical experiments—can limit even casual scholarly interactions such as a humanist interviewing a poet about his or her writing. In assessing the issue, Schrag argues that biomedical researchers and bioethicists repeatedly excluded social scientists from rule making and ignored the existing ethical traditions in nonmedical fields. Ultimately, he contends, IRBs not only threaten to polarize medical and social scientists, they also create an atmosphere wherein certain types of academics can impede and even silence others.
The first work to document the troubled emergence of today's system of regulating scholarly research, Ethical Imperialism illuminates the problems caused by simple, universal rule making in academic and professional research. This short, smart analysis will engage scholars across academia.
Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009 Reviews
-
Short history of how IRBs gained so much power. This topic is probably too specialized for most people to care, but it is a case study in cost disease. There are few numbers here, as there is very little research on IRB in general. Hopeless situation. Makes me all the more happy I don't work at a university.
-
As the title suggests, he has a strong point of view, to wit that IRB's have been a disaster for the social sciences. Very detailed history (not his fault, but history repeats itself so rapidly and completely in this area that it did get a bit repetitive -- in one conference or commission or draft report after another, biomedical and to lesser extent psychological research experts decide what will happen, and history/anthro/sociology etc. perspectives get ignored) of the "mission creep" associated with human subjects research regulation.
I finished a 3-year stint as IRB chair in 2012, at which point the excitement in this vein was over 2011 advance notice of forthcoming new rules, one aspect of which was to address social and behavioral science research in a more rational manner (e.g., investigator could declare, subject to periodic random audits, that low-risk research was "excused" from IRB oversight, as opposed to current system in which the determination that one's study is either "not human subjects research" as per the regs or "exempt" oddly enough has to be made by the IRB itself, contrary to the lay/ordinary meaning of "exempt").
I see from this author's blog that nothing ever really happened except the collection of comments on the proposal, though there are (again) recent rumblings that the revision is about to come out.
Can't happen soon enough. As this book documents well, you end up spending tremendous amounts of time shuffling paper about vanishingly small risks that you can't prevent anyway, all the while justifying the activity either by internal process indicators ("we managed to cut down on delays this year by 15%") or recycled horror stories (better get that anthro grad student to correct typos in the field interview consent form or we could be looking at another Tuskegee experiment!).
Oral history exclusion, definition of "generalizable knowledge" and so much more retraumatized me while reading this book. It should come with its own consent form {have you been on an IRB in an institution with social science departments? reading this book may upset you and remind you of the needless disposal of about six person-months of your life.......).
But seriously, I did think he could have done more to get the perspective of people who have been on IRB's, but his coverage of hearings, documents, archives, and what little research on the topic exists was thorough.
If you haven't been immersed in these issues, it will probably be novel intel. I sense that the general educated public knows about stuff like informed consent for drug trials but may be less aware of how far regulation has inserted itself into scholarship more generally.
