[jack9]

> The IRB should not have allowed this to happen.

I see this repeated, but arguments like "You don't get to secretly do things to your subjects." are not sufficient nor is "it's arguably the most important software on the planet". These viewpoints are not agreed upon or codified anywhere that would affect an IRB decision.

"human subjects" qualification -> https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res... (et al sources)

The notable history of outrage in some communities (did this make the evening news anywhere?) that has been created, may influence future decisions, at best.

[Doxin]

The linked page doesn't say anything about what is and isn't a human subject.

But even so, defining human subjects so as to exclude humans who are subject to your experimentation is absurd on the face of it. Who cares what is codified by whom? Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical. I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating.

[jack9]

> The linked page doesn't say anything about what is and isn't a human subject.

Why you decided that was a claim is your own bias talking. I was pointing out the relevant section. You've tried to raise something that isn't the issue, nor is it a sensible question as you undoubtedly realized (But even so).

Every human in an experiment is a human subject. Glad we got that out of the way.

The issue is what an IRB is looking for in evaluating the ethical feasibility of an experiment.

> Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical

> I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating.

That's because it's your opinion. Seriously, go tell your local Target or College Bookstore to stop playing with the wall colors because there is no disclosure AND they make money off of it.

[seoaeu]

To quote the department [0] as was linked elsewhere:

> An IRB evaluates “Human Subjects Research”, which has a precise technical definition according to US federal regulations (see 45 CFR 46.102), and this technical definition may not accord with intuitive understanding of concepts like “experiments” or even “experiments on people”.

[0]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3Nm2bfR4tH1nOGBpuOmLyoJVEi...