Skip to main content
Academia

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 41
    A common response in such situations to "prove it" is often "I'm the one conducting the study, why do we need to make a big deal of my consent/safety?" However, there have been more than a few examples where junior co-authors have been coerced by their supervisor into being test subjects or donating tissue, to their potential detriment. Your particular case might not be coercive, but requiring the proper forms and third-party IRB sign-off provides a safety check. (If you can be coerced to donate, you can be coerced to utter nebulous assurances that you weren't.)
    – R.M.
    Commented Feb 9, 2019 at 19:32
  • 7
    @R.M. - Would the forms and IRB really be effective in preventing that sort of situation?
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Feb 9, 2019 at 19:51
  • 15
    @Obie2.0 Granted, they're not 100% effective, but having a third party look things over helps to separate out the "yeah, no big deal" cases from the "wait - there might be worrisome coercion happening here" cases needing a closer second look. At the very least it can possibly move things from (hard to detect/punish) unofficial "shading of truth" to explicitly lying in official black and white.
    – R.M.
    Commented Feb 9, 2019 at 20:13
  • 3
    This answer could use an explicit example of what could go wrong to highlight the importance and thus make it understandable why these rules are not out of caprice. (For example, one possibility might be that while it is hir own blood, sie might be harboring an undiagnosed bloodborne infection [whether actual or not is irrelevant - it's a risk from the pov of others] and thus by treating without proper protocol, risking spreading that. The "infraction" is then that one created this undue risk to others in the experiment.)
    – The_Sympathizer
    Commented Feb 10, 2019 at 11:01
  • "your audience will start to raise questions that will haunt you." the correct response from all sane people in the field is to shun and destroy the careers of anyone insane enough to respond in such a way. There's no excuse for discarding common sense.
    – Murphy
    Commented Feb 12, 2019 at 15:20