Not "who was harmed" but "who was a human subject and how would the training apply to them"?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @chrisontwatter2 and
Ridicule is problematic, calling attention to lack of quality is different.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @chrisontwatter2 and
Ah yes. But what does it say about exposing lack of quality in research while not following *basic rules of human subjects research*. I mean, I contact the IRB (at least for waivers) even for registry research. To actually contact/identify human subjects without IRB? Wow.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @PsychPLockwood and
Exactly. I keep trying to explain it, and people keep failing to get it: RESEARCHERS DON'T GET TO CHOOSE whether their research is IRB exempt. Only the IRB can make that determination, using the rules specified to define what research doesn't require IRB oversight.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Most IRBs even have a fast-track process for determining whether research falls under one of the specified categories of exempt research. In most cases, the chair of the IRB can make the determination.
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.