Hamburger: IRBs are Worse than McCarthyism

In a brief article in Commentary, Philip Hamburger summarizes his case against IRBs, made in much greater detail in his 2004 article, “The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards," Supreme Court Review (2004): 271–354. In this version, he argues that the regulation of human subjects research "is the most widespread and systematic assault on freedom of speech and the press in the nation's history. McCarthyism was more overtly political, but IRB licensing is more pervasive and methodical, and its consequences are far more lethal."

[Hamburger, Philip, "The Censorship You’ve Never Heard Of.” Commentary, July 2013, 21-26]

UNM, NYU: Miller's Fatshaming Tweet Wasn't Research

Two IRBs have concluded that Geoffrey Miller's June tweet about "obese PhD applicants" was not human subjects research.

A UNM statement explains,

Miller at first claimed his tweet was part of a research project, but investigations by the Institutional Review Board at New York University where he was a visiting professor, and the IRB at UNM where he is a tenured professor, concluded that was not correct.

The statement also lists the terms of a censure by the university.

For background, see Trolling Isn't Human Subjects Research and Michelle Meyer: Miller Interacted, Intervened

Ignorance Is Strength: Lecture Video Online

I just noticed that Brigham Young University has posted a video of my February 2013 lecture, "Ignorance Is Strength: Pseudo-Expertise and the Regulation of Human Subjects Research." Many thanks to my hosts there and the producers of the video.