I'm a scientist, and I "know" no such thing. I also know that violating human subjects research violations is a very serious matter.
-
-
-
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @peterboghossian
The fact that no one was harmed was probably one reason why Peter got off so easily. Really, it's no big deal to take the human subjects research training. I do it every few years, and grumble about it, like most academic physicians.
4 replies 0 retweets 26 likes -
Not "who was harmed" but "who was a human subject and how would the training apply to them"?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisontwatter2 @gorskon and
The subjects were the peer reviewers and the other academics that contribute to a literature who had their field and reputations smeared. The goal of the study was ideological ax-grinding, and an attempt to devalue the careers of others that they don’t think have value.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @chrisontwatter2 and
Now, whether or not that field should exist is an opinion, and that would be fine to have. Subjecting humans to an experiment to study that opinion without consent, without oversight and with *deception* of all things was very bad judgment.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @chrisontwatter2 and
Bad judgment/risky absolutely. Not sure how to otherwise accomplish the goal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @chrisontwatter2 and
You can use deception in research but it must be vetted. It would still be questionably ethical to waste all these people’s time with bullshit you made up as a “study” because you don’t like what they study. Human subjects probably should never be used for ax-grinding.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @chrisontwatter2 and
I agree mostly. I'm still lost, how do we expose systems if said systems are biased. If they have a bias against your sham study on philosophical grounds (which your study is trying to attack) how else to prove the point? I'm not intending to be dense or disagreeable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @chrisontwatter2 and
Go through the IRB, create an ethical framework, involve the subjects post hoc in the critique so they could possibly benefit, reimburse their time, apologize even. Also don’t ridicule peer reviewers. It’s unpaid labor, and isn’t designed for fraud detection.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Yeah, it's not that hard. (Well, actually, writing a protocol that's ethical can be very hard.) Also, the ridiculing of the peer reviewers, some of whose identities were revealed in the aftermath, was a totally dick move on the part of Boghossian and his fellow hacks.
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.