| > IRB does always give my studies "exempt" status, but it still has to be reviewed. How could they do it more efficiently?: How could they know it's exempt without reviewing it? Should they take researchers' at face value? That seems to undermine the reason we have IRBs, which was unscrupulous researchers. Should we assume they are willing to torture people but not to mislead the IRB? Why shouldn't data be private? How hard is it? > a Kinesiology dissertation study where they were asked to do extremely strenuous physical activity. He fainted(!) at one point from the activity. And it seemed to them that there were relatively few safeguards from that happening. Informed consent is essential to an IRB; your friend would have read and signed something detailing the activities and risks. Strenuous excercise to the point of exhaustion is a part of sports performance research, at least. As long as you inform people, they have the power to opt-out (not prisoners, 6 year olds, etc.), and no undue risk. |
Think about how taxes work. The IRS doesn't check every person. You make rules, you perform random audits.
IRBs could easily do the same thing. Set some rules like (simplified) "No IRB necessary if your research doesn't physically touch a person". Researchers will read the rules and skip an IRB if they're in an exempt category. Then just audit at a high enough rate they won't lie.