Human Nature

Many of the critics of IRB review in the social sciences argue that they don't need IRB review because individual researchers are ethical and will make sure that their research meets the appropriate ethical standards. The flaw in this argument is human nature. One of the things that we know about human nature is that no one can be totally objective about their own work. We can and must try to be objective about the risks and benefits of our research, but we can't be totally objective. One way that we're not objective is that we all tend to underestimate the risks of things with which we are most familiar. I often use the example of the time I got in a cab to go to the airport and the cab was in a minor accident. I hit the plastic behind the driver, banged my nose and bit my lip. I wasn't wearing a seat belt. Why? Because I was underestimating the risk of that part of my trip. Living in New York City, I take cabs all the time and it was that familiarity which led me to underestimate the risks. It's the same in research. We can't be objective about the risks in the procedures or situations that are most familiar to us. We also overestimate the benefits of our work. If we didn't think that what we were doing was important, we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning to do it.

As I said in my previous post, ethical research requires that the risks of the research are identified, that the risks are minimized, and that the risks are reasonable in relation to the potential benefits of the research. Although researchers have the primary responsibility to make that analysis, since they can't be totally objective about the risks and benefits, every research activity needs an independent, objective review. That is what the IRB is supposed to provide. The IRB, however, must also be objective and have the necessary expertise to make this risk/benefit analysis.