Posted by name on January 27, 2001, at 1:48:47
In reply to Re: Institutional Review Board policies, posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2001, at 0:36:09
> I don't think I need their approval to make this board available, but I may need (should ask for) it to write about it.
The IRB could agree, but one must accept some exceptional authority to enjoy the intellectual fraternity of a respected and endowed academy. Because of the public nature of the medium, to publish the discussion board on the Internet is also to write about it. The board speaks publicly of itself.
Is the project being undertaken with the notion that a poster may be presented at a community gathering? (IRB Guidelines)
The board does tend to be investigative and intended to contribute to generalizable knowledge. Whether or not systematic review is required by university or federal authorities, the Office of Human Protections informed consent guidelines might still be helpful:
Even if the board is not, in and of itself, research, it is a major innovation. The seminal 1979 Belmont report suggests it is the responsibility of medical practice committees to insist that a major innovation be incorporated into a formal research project.
Rzip suggests a hypothetico-deductive approach, and of course "The Article" sites a need for further study.
> Now, how are we to recognize Nature's most excellent web sites? ... whatever does not kill them makes them stronger. --Ecce Homo (adapted), Friedrich Nietzsche, 1889
A recent Medscape article that suggested a need for rigorous assessment of claims that energy transfer can lead to accurate clinical diagnoses offered the advise of a Chinese proverb: "Real gold does not fear even the hottest fire."