You don't like him, that's fine, he's sometimes unlikeable. But trying to shoehorn what he did into this hole so he can be punished is silly. It makes you look terrible, and worse, arbitrary. How many instances of +GHK w/HS not prosecuted at his ins. every week w/these defs.
-
-
Replying to @ReliefBelief @gorskon and
I don't particularly know him. But I am familiar with IRB processes, and this is definitely something that would typically fall under research.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @besttrousers @ReliefBelief and
Matt Darling 🌐 💸 🌇 Retweeted Don Moynihan
See thread here:https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1082697286696779782 …
Matt Darling 🌐 💸 🌇 added,
Don MoynihanVerified account @donmoynThe journal review process runs very much on trust at the publication stage (with high ex-post risk of verification). Otherwise the transaction costs of ex-ante verification would be very high. . So a research project that fabricates data & reduces trust has costs. 1/ https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1082445174645637121 …Show this thread2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @besttrousers @gorskon and
Genuine question: what process do you envision where Peter got approval to take the actions he did, not compromising the results along the way?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ReliefBelief @gorskon and
The obvious solution here would be for him to apply for a waiver of informed consent. ie, permission from the IRB to deceive subjects.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @besttrousers @ReliefBelief and
Exactly. Such waivers can be granted if the research requires deception. The IRB decides if the deception represents undue potential harm to human subjects and, if it doesn't, usually requires a post-study debriefing of the deceived subjects.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @besttrousers and
We wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't Peter, and it wasn't embarassing. For ex: Squishy Studies Y academic attends protest, claims to be part of Z group (trans, say, for solidarity) reports on human interaction results in editorial page. Not experiment. Looks same.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReliefBelief @gorskon and
"We wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't Peter" We would! This is not the only time someone has run into IRB issues in history.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @besttrousers @gorskon and
Can you imagine the scenario I detailed one above happening and resulting in no punishment, even if statements like oh, "Far Right seems to exemplify yada yada" (btw, I am not at all Right just so we're clear about my biases)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReliefBelief @gorskon and
I'm not sure I understand the scenario you are positing. If you attended a protest and monitored people's behavior in the context of testing a hypothesis, that would need to go through IRB.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Yup. And it might well have ended up being exempt, depending on the study design, but you have to go through the process.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.