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 discusses potential Trump administration health-related appointments, focusing on FDA commissioner candidates Jim O'Neill and Balaji Srinivasan, and their potential to implement beneficial reforms. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses potential Trump administration picks for key health-related positions, particularly the FDA commissioner and NIH chief. He expresses excitement about the possibility of Jim O'Neill or Balaji Srinivasan being chosen for FDA commissioner, viewing them as principled libertarians who could implement beneficial reforms. Alexander outlines several policies these candidates might pursue, such as medical reciprocity with other countries and streamlining generic drug approvals. He also mentions John Ioannidis as a surprising potential pick for NIH chief, praising his work in improving medical research standards. The post concludes by noting that pharmaceutical industry stocks haven't moved much in response to these potential appointments. Shorter summary