[csydas]

I think it's quite easy to see the benefit of the author's study and their frustration is completely understandable - however, I can't help but feel that much of their frustration was simply because the rules impeded their progress, not that the rules were actually useless.

My major gripe whenever there is a long piece that decries the bureaucracy of various regulatory boards is that the complaints tend to be about how the bureaucracy is a personal inconvenience. Some of the gripes I'll absolutely grant; pen versus pencil and inflexibility for giving potentially violent persons a weapon probably needs some sort of leeway, but I think protectionary measures absolutely should be a brick wall; a surmountable one, sure, but only as a result of you actually trying a bit and demonstrating that your intended actions aren't going to do exactly what the regulation is trying to prevent, and that should be on the researcher using human participants to demonstrate.

The idea of easily avoidable and mutable regulatory functions seems contradictory - that is, a researcher shouldn't be declaring what should and should not apply to them. This isn't fear that they're Hitler and going to inject people with nastiness, it's fear of the dumb mistakes that every human makes and our often poor ability to predict the outcome of certain actions. I get it - they want to help people and the regulations are inconvenient for them; but having gone through many IRB processes myself, it's not insurmountable in the least bit, much less anything the author listed.