|
|
|
|
|
|
by barry-cotter
3221 days ago
|
|
|
Did you read the post? There were multiple ridiculously stupid things the IRB insisted on that had no impact on safety and were pure bureaucratic BS, the insistence on blinding patient's names with the blinding instrument right next to the blinded data, the signing in pen only, the person in the Research office having to do the course when they did not do research. All of this for a study that involved taking notes on things the doctors were going to be doing anyway, which posed no risks to anyone. |
|
|
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.