Posted by name on January 25, 2001, at 16:16:40
In reply to Institutional Review Board policies, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 3:33:27
After 2 1/2 years of using university resources for a project, it is reasonable to ask for input from an authoritative panel at the university.
The role of an IRB is not to comment on all research, but to review research conducted by employees of that institution. This "psycho-babble" project relies on the university for credibility and for financial support. The university has obligations to those who fund university projects and research. Federal grants are part of that funding, hence the role of the Department of Health and Human Services.
>does an IRB need to decide if a support board is research, in & of itself ? I think not
But the on-line discussion is obviously a “project” of a professor employed at the University of Chicago.
The IRB guideline says: "If you are planning to publish the results of a project, it is almost always regarded as 'research.'"
And Dr. Hsuing has said all along:
>I want to be able to use these posts elsewhere. For example, on my Books page or in an article or something.
>Does an IRB need to give consent when public information is used to write a paper?
In this case, the information was made public using equipment the university provided. The information was provided at Dr. Hsuing’s suggestion, and while he intended to publish papers based on the information.
Folks, I am not trying to impose a "brand of ‘white bread’, ‘moral majority’-like political correctness to this site." The reason I return to a site that "disgusts me the way this one seems to" is because there is the opportunity, to "take up … issues with … the U of Chicago" and perhaps develop here a more "scientifically, evidenced-based pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy form of treatment for those with mental illnesses."
Rebecca inventoried some possible weaknesses of the site in a post at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/321.htmlAnd Snowie suggested methods used at other sites to reduce the stress to participants who otherwise might blindly attempt to navigate arbitrary rules of participation:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/129.htmlThe reason I continue to advocate “in a cause against (for) the people (possibly) wronged via this site" or who might have suffered from some harm they encountered here, is because the involvement of more minds, and a diversity of viewpoints can improve collective activity. Even if, in a worst case scenario, it were "resonable to question Names' grip on reality," it is also reasonable to consider that in name's blathering psychosis, name might yet utter a meaningful statement that could contribute to better understanding of mental suffering and to more effective clinical practices.
poster:name
thread:315
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/324.html