Thank you for this comment. While we have only sk...

2009-08-14T09:57:27.547-04:00

Thank you for this comment.

While we have only sketchy details from Price's account, I think this case suggests that IRBs are the wrong tool for protecting confidentiality.

The UT IRB did not, it seems, warn the participants in Harper's original research that her notes would be seized on the grounds of nuclear terrorism, since no one could have foreseen such a bizarre chain of events. The IRB did not prevent the seizure of the materials, for it had no such power. And it did not find a way to allow Harper's research to proceed.

Since the early 1970s, scholars concerned with the question of confidentiality have argued that if state and federal governments are serious about protecting confidentiality, they will pass laws shielding the research notes of social scientists, just as many states now have shield laws protecting journalists. Instead, governments have imposed IRB mandates that offer a false sense of security for research participants and can be used to stifle the work of ethical researchers.

I see you posted about this before I could even se...

2009-08-13T00:27:23.833-04:00

I see you posted about this before I could even send you the link to Price's article! I thought you'd be interested in the peculiar ethics twist (sorry, make that "Ethics") to this case, and I was right.

Indeed, when I first read Price's article, that was the thing that most vividly grabbed my attention: the fact that her tenure bid must have certainly been affected by the fact that her IRB had rescinded not only her permission to conduct research, but even her right to use previously collected data.

Comments on Institutional Review Blog: UT Knoxville's IRB Joins "Collective Mobbing"

Thank you for this comment. While we have only sk...

I see you posted about this before I could even se...