[icelancer]

>>Massive inefficiencies in bureaucracy are always hidden behind the fig leaf of consistency and accountability, but it's worthwhile to consider what aim they serve and at what cost.

This problem was largely solved by the development and acceptance of private IRBs. Going with private IRBs that meet 2x weekly, turn forms around quickly, and are willing to pre-qualify your work - at cost, of course - is the road many researchers take now.

[Sir_Substance]

How is that solving the problem???

[icelancer]

....how does it not?

If you are asking the question: "How does this private market solution solve the problem of government/education/medical bureaucracy being inefficient," then I guess it does not solve the root cause. But trying to solve IRB problems involving that three-headed hydra is not likely to succeed. Going around the system is a feasible workaround.

[jessriedel]

Implementing a terrible process faster at great cost is not the same thing as solving the problem, nor is it the best possible solution short of "fix all bureaucracy".

[icelancer]

I wouldn't call my experiences in private IRB to be terrible at all, honestly.

[jessriedel]

My comment does not conflict with that because by "process" I mean the mechanism purporting to increase subject safety, not your experience.

[upvotinglurker]

What basis is there for the assumption that private IRBs have a "terrible process" and do a worse job at protecting subject safety?