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 shares reader responses to his IRB experience, ranging from similar frustrations to defenses of the system, and discusses concerns about increasing bureaucracy in research. Longer summary

This post highlights responses to Scott's previous article about his frustrating experience with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process. Many readers shared similar stories of bureaucratic hurdles and absurd requirements they faced when trying to conduct research. Some commenters offered advice on how to navigate the system more effectively or suggested that experiences may vary depending on the institution. Others defended the importance of IRBs in preventing unethical research, citing historical examples like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Scott acknowledges some fair criticisms but maintains that IRBs have become overly burdensome for low-risk studies. He expresses concern about new NIH policies that may further increase bureaucratic requirements for basic science research. 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

Scott Alexander responds to criticism of his growth mindset study analysis, acknowledging some errors while maintaining other criticisms. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a critique of his previous post about a growth mindset study by Dr. Paunesku, the lead author. He acknowledges several errors in his original analysis, including misinterpreting a graph and incorrectly stating that a control group was classified as a mindset intervention. However, Scott maintains some of his criticisms, particularly regarding the combination of different interventions in the analysis and the interpretation of statistical significance. He expresses concern about loosening significance criteria and the potential for misleading conclusions when combining different interventions. Shorter summary

The author humorously responds to a common argument against evidence-based medicine, suggesting a parachute experiment with a twist. Longer summary

This post is a humorous take on the common argument against evidence-based medicine that uses parachutes as an example. The author playfully suggests using those who make this argument as the control group in a parachute experiment, but then acknowledges that this would be unethical as groups need to be determined by random assignment. The post uses irony to subtly critique the flawed logic often used to dismiss evidence-based medicine. Shorter summary