Third Party Effects as Cause for Institutional Review Board Review

There has been a push in the past two decades to extend the scope and power of institutional review boards that vet research for effects on human subjects in universities. The Department of Health and Human Services has passed a regulation called the common rule that covers potential harm that might arise to test subjects in the context of medical and similar research. That is fine. But the DHHS goes on to authorize training for institutional review boards and for universities, one version of which is produced by a group called CITI headed by a Professor Paul Braunschweiger at the University of Miami and supported by Professor Adil Shamoo of the University of Maryland at Baltimore. Professor Shamoo is editor of the journal Accountability in Research and also teaches at my alma mater, Sarah Lawrence College.

One of the claims of the CITI program backed by Professor Shamoo (as per a telephone conversation and several e-mails that we have exchanged) is that IRBs appointed in accordance with the common rule and DHHS regulations have the right to vet research on the basis of harm that the research might cause to third parties unrelated to the research. Thus, the CITI training claims that an Institutional Review Board at the university has the right to stop research if its findings are unpalatable to any social interest group. Where in the First Amendment the DHHS has found the justification to arrogate this power to its agents remains unclear.

I posed the following question to Professor Shamoo via an e-mail:

>"Let's say Dr. Thomas Sowell does some research involving interviews with students about affirmative action. His hypothesis is that affirmative action in higher education results in reduced graduation rates. One effect of his research may be reduced admission of minority applicants to Ivy League colleges. Based on the preceding information, what would be the mandate of a human subjects committee with respect to Dr. Sowell's research?"

Professor Shamoo responded in an e-mail as follows:

>"You are trying to inch me slowly to an opinion. This opens up another ten questions related to the percentage you mentioned. In summary, there is a risk and it needs to be evaluated in the context of the overall benefits and study designe. ADIL."

In other words, Professor Shamoo believes that he or an institutional review board acting in accordance with his model would have the right to stop Thomas Sowell from doing his work if they conclude that the harm it causes is greater than the benefits.

When I queried Professor Braunschweiger about the suppressive nature of these rules he responded as follows*:

>"I attempted to respond to your questions in good faith. As such, I was stunned by your arrogance, lack of collegiality, shameless self promotion and lack of patience for someone who may not share your views. I am surprised by your lack of understanding of the ethical foundations of human subjects research and the abuses (including those in the US and Nazi Germany) that led to Federal regulations requiring peer review and oversight....Certainly in this case your first amendment rights have not been violated. Moreover, they have allowed you, the privilege of making an ass of yourself."

It seems to me that Professor Braunschweiger's emotional diatribe offers scant hope of even handed review to conservatives. Rather, institutional review boards are likely already a pretext for left wing censorship; they are organizations whose chief role in the social sciences is to cause harm to society by excluding conservative and other unpopular (in academia) viewpoints.

I followed up Professor Shamoo with an additional inquiry today. I purchased a copy of his and David B. Resnik's book "Responsible Conduct of Research" (Oxford University Press, 2003). On page 270 they write:

"The very idea of 'intelligence' is not purely objective but reflects value judgments relating to human cognitive abilities."

I sent an e-mail to Shamoo inquiring as to whether he could cite any research or theortical exegisis that supports this claim. The abstract below, by Schmidt and Hunter, directly contradicts Shamoo's claim. General Mental Ability or IQ is one of a few well-verified predictors of job performance.

Shamoo and Resnick's statement, not central to their book, belies the bias and underlying problems in what they and Professor Braunshweiger are doing with third party effects in the CITI training. They claim that research that harms third parties who are unrelated to the research can be stopped by a human subjects committee that the DHHS has commissioned. Yet, they make ideologically motivated statements about subjects like general mental ability that are properly the matter of specialized research.

It seems to me that Professors Shamoo and Braunschweiger potentially cause harm. By attempting to enforce their value judgments on the social sciences without concern for the glaring censorship issues that have become so well known, they, together with the DHHS, aim to silence the speech and research of politically incorrect social scientists who aim to contribute to society.

>"The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings
Frank L. Schmidt
Department of Management and Organization University of Iowa
John E. Hunter
Department of Psychology Michigan State University

ABSTRACT

This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and the 18 other selection procedures. Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of .63)....

*My response to Professor Braunschweiger had been as follows:

Dr. Braunschweiger:

I'm sure that your intentions are good and it may not have occurred to you, but the institutional review boards are potentially the basis for institutionalized censorship of social science research. That links very explicitly to the First Amendment, especially if it permits the censorship of research that does not cause harm. I noticed that the Belmont principles as well as two of the modules explicitly claim the right of the IRB committees to balance costs and benefits without mention of any prerequisite harm caused by the research. One of the modules speaks of harm to groups
not party to the research. This is very much in the line of history of Lysenko and socially driven approaches to science that I would have thought had been discredited since the fall of the Third Reich and the USSR.
Moreover, given the dismal history of universities with respect to
censorship since 1980, I am stunned that the First Amendment issues have not occurred to you. Censorship, not protection of human subjects, may become the primary work of your Institutional Review Boards. The fact that you have not considered the First Amendment ramifications of what you are doing concerns me. You are clearly not a historian.