I have no doubt that it passed an ethics review. I'm sorry if my comment seemed to suggest otherwise.
I suppose what I was trying to get at was a suspicion that ethics reviews in today's research landscape (not only in the medical field, but others as well) seem to me more like a lip service. And don't get me wrong, that's just an opinion, I'm sure a lot of you think otherwise.
It is true that a great deal of review is lip service. A cynic would point out that while IRBs contain an ethical review, they often exist only to absolve the university of legal or moral responsibility. The realist in me points out that ethical review has been right-shifted: now we're more likely to approve a wide range of experiments that skirt right up against the common ethical boundaries, and then let the subsequent public response determine the ethics of the action.
None of this really matters until somebody announces we can make viable embryos from stem cells or that we can bring a viable embryo to term in an artificial womb. Both of these seem to be not implausible in the next 20 years.
I suppose what I was trying to get at was a suspicion that ethics reviews in today's research landscape (not only in the medical field, but others as well) seem to me more like a lip service. And don't get me wrong, that's just an opinion, I'm sure a lot of you think otherwise.