|
|
|
|
|
|
by DataWorker
3220 days ago
|
|
|
He most likely has sufficient training and knowledge about the ethics given his profession. Curious what credentials you have that might make you more qualified to speak on the ethics of medical research, but in any case I think the point he makes is that it's possible to get so caught up in the letter of the law that you run roughshod over the spirit of protecting people that brought about the laws in the first place. This seems to often be the case with concerns about data sharing and personal privacy. If you read his whole piece he discusses this and you can extrapolate that as the result of the irb stonewalling, as well intentioned as it presumably was, many patients are still suffering from not only violations of the privacy that the irb was concerned about, but those same patients may also have erroneous and stigmatizing diagnoses being included in the information that's being freely shared. The IRB in this case is doing damage by preventing research that might address this. Pinker's made some worthwhile comments on this if you're interested in this topic. You probably will get downvoted because you come across as being entirely dismissive of expertise or thinking that is not your own. I think you general point about the importance of oversight isn't lost on anyone. |
|
|
Sure but the mockery in that post suggests he either doesn't care about them or thinks they're stupid.
Also do we really have to point out that just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean they have any authority when it comes to medical ethics? I mean, there's hundreds of cases amply demonstrating this even just this decade.