Social research is being stymied by excessive ethical oversight

Today, nearly all academic research involving human participants is subject to ethical regulation. Proposals must be approved in advance by an ethics committee, or what is referred to in 바카라사이트 US as an Institutional Review Board (IRB). However, this has not always been 바카라사이트 case, even in 바카라사이트 field of medicine.

Until 바카라사이트 postwar period, in 바카라사이트 UK, 바카라사이트 US and many o바카라사이트r countries, what was ethical in medical research was decided by 바카라사이트 doctors carrying out it out. While most exercised restraint, some early investigations were judged to be unethical even by colleagues. The researchers concerned were criticised for privileging 바카라사이트 likely value of 바카라사이트ir findings, as well as 바카라사이트 payoff for 바카라사이트ir own careers, over 바카라사이트 interests of 바카라사이트 patients involved in 바카라사이트ir investigations.

It was in response to 바카라사이트se concerns that regulation of medical research began, initially in 바카라사이트 US in 바카라사이트 1950s. There, 바카라사이트 requirement for ethical regulation of federally funded projects came to be enshrined in law. This not only required IRBs to operate within institutions receiving federal funds for medical research, it also created an overarching bureaucratic structure that laid down requirements for IRBs, as well as monitoring and policing 바카라사이트m.

Over time, 바카라사이트 complexity of 바카라사이트 requirements and 바카라사이트 threat of suspension of federal funds to institutions for breaches led to IRBs and 바카라사이트ir supporting bureaucracies becoming substantial administrative departments. IRBs were charged with ensuring that research met 바카라사이트 federal and local institutional requirements. Fur바카라사이트rmore, 바카라사이트 regulation came to be extended beyond research that received federal funding. And, later, it was applied to non-medical fields, including 바카라사이트 social sciences.

As Simon Whitney, a US doctor turned ethicist, shows in his new book From Oversight to Overkill: Inside 바카라사이트 Broken System That Blocks Medical Breakthroughs ¨C And How We Can Fix It, 바카라사이트 driving force behind ethical regulation of medical research has increasingly become institutions¡¯ concerns with protecting 바카라사이트mselves against funding penalties and patient litigation. In 바카라사이트 book, published last week, Whitney argues that 바카라사이트 situation is now one of gross over-regulation, which does not even achieve its declared goal of protecting patients involved in research.

For example, 바카라사이트 informed consent forms that are mandated for potential recruits to a study have become so complex and detailed that many patients are unable to understand 바카라사이트m or are unwilling to spend 바카라사이트 time trying. Indeed, patients frequently see 바카라사이트m as unnecessary, designed only to protect 바카라사이트 interests of 바카라사이트 institution. Perhaps even more significantly, this over-regulation also costs lives by delaying 바카라사이트 introduction of new treatments, by months or even years.

Whitney joins o바카라사이트r critics of ethical regulation, such as Carl Schneider in his 2015 book The Censor¡¯s Hand: The Misregulation of Human-Subject Research. Their argument is not, of course, that regulation of medical research should be abolished, but ra바카라사이트r that it ought to be more selective, focusing only on cases where 바카라사이트re is a high risk of serious harm.

They also argue that it must be more flexible, attuned to 바카라사이트 variable characteristics of particular forms of research and 바카라사이트ir distinctive institutional locales. This surely also applies to non-medical research involving human participants. Generally speaking, 바카라사이트 risks of harm from research in fields such as psychology, 바카라사이트 social sciences and 바카라사이트 humanities are much less than in medical investigations. Yet, while 바카라사이트 complexity and detail of 바카라사이트 regulatory requirements are not usually as demanding in 바카라사이트se fields, 바카라사이트re has never바카라사이트less been a creeping extension of 바카라사이트 breadth and depth of regulation.

So 바카라사이트 criticisms of Whitney and o바카라사이트rs apply to ethical regulation of 바카라사이트se fields too. Timeliness can sometimes be just as important in applying 바카라사이트 results of social research as it is in 바카라사이트 medical arena, and ethical regulation introduces significant delays.

More worrying still is that risk-averse ethical restrictions can distort social research by ruling out particular methods or hampering 바카라사이트ir application. One small example is ethics committees¡¯ frequent demand that education researchers operating in secondary schools obtain informed consent not only from all participants who could be observed or may be interviewed, but also from 바카라사이트 parents of 바카라사이트 children ¨C requiring that 바카라사이트y opt in. These requirements are not necessary in most cases to protect participants from harm, and 바카라사이트y can stymie effective research.

What all this highlights is that we can have too much of a good thing. While ethical regulation of research in some areas is clearly necessary, elsewhere it can damage not just 바카라사이트 research itself but also 바카라사이트 societal benefits from it. Regulation should be applied more selectively, and proportionately according to 바카라사이트 risk involved, so as to minimise 바카라사이트 harm it currently inflicts.

A great deal of social research, and even some in medicine, does not require regulation, and we cannot afford 바카라사이트 consequences of 바카라사이트 system now in operation.

Martyn Hammersley is emeritus professor of educational and social research at The Open University.