That's neither a circular argument nor is he using his personal judgment as proof of something independent of it.
-
-
Replying to @RayTski @pandovstrochnis and
Does he now consider it mostly harmless or did it "considerable damage" or "pouring oil into the fire"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DorianGray321 @pandovstrochnis and
That's not a circular argument though.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RayTski @pandovstrochnis and
Well, apart from the contradiction you ignore, he basically said: "*I* consider it harmless, so, it is."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @pandovstrochnis @RayTski and
Ok. So. Harmless. Case closed. What is all the fuzz about?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @pandovstrochnis @DorianGray321 and
Yep, in fact, the ethics review board, while being a flawed institution, managed to deal well with the case, I guess. So everything worked out OK.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RayTski @pandovstrochnis and
Yes, of course. The flawed institution made ruling *you* approved. So, all is good then.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DorianGray321 @pandovstrochnis and
No, they made a ruling a non-flawed institution would have also made. Which is what
@pandovstrochnis said about twenty tweets ago.3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
The @Portland_State IRB ruled as the IRB at ANY university receiving federal funds would have ruled. Part of the contracts a university signs when it accepts federal grants is to abide by the Common Rule and federal research regulations. Failure to do so risks loss of funds.
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.