Scott Alexander reviews a book critiquing Institutional Review Boards, arguing they now harm medical research more than they help. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Simon Whitney's book 'From Oversight To Overkill', which critiques the current state of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in medical research. The book traces the history of IRBs from their noble beginnings to their current state of over-regulation and obstruction. Whitney argues that while IRBs were intended to protect research subjects, they now cause more harm than good by delaying or preventing potentially life-saving research. The review discusses several case studies that illustrate the problems with IRBs, and concludes by considering Whitney's proposed reforms and the broader societal trends that have led to this situation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander recounts his frustrating attempt to conduct a study on a bipolar disorder screening test, highlighting the excessive bureaucratic hurdles that ultimately led to the study's abandonment. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes his frustrating experience trying to conduct a study on the validity of a bipolar disorder screening test. He encounters numerous bureaucratic hurdles from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), including issues with consent forms, data security, and patient privacy. Despite his best efforts and those of his colleagues, the study is eventually abandoned due to the overwhelming regulatory burden. Scott reflects on how this experience has made him skeptical of the current research approval process, arguing that it disproportionately hinders small-scale, independent researchers while favoring large institutions. He concludes by expressing hope for reform in the scientific research process to make it more accessible and efficient. Shorter summary