(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007-06)
Barke, Richard P.
Composed of a variety of scientific and technical experts plus a few lay members, thousands of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the US must identify and assess the potential risks to human research subjects, and balance those risks against the potential benefits of the research. These assessments are laden with uncertainty, however. Most IRBs handle risk and its uncertainty by adopting a version of the precautionary principle, which is largely suggested by the Belmont Report and the Common Rule. To assess scientific merit, IRBs tacitly employ a "sanguinity principle," which treats uncertainty as inevitable in scientific progress. In balancing the uncertainties of human subjects risks and scientific benefits, IRBs use uncertainty as a bridging device that allows the approaches of science and ethics to be reconciled. Nevertheless, the flexibility and lack of consistent oversight of how IRBs apply these principles leads to frustration by investigators who are unclear about the criteria by which their proposals are evaluated.
(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006-06)
Barke, Richard P.; Silva, Carol L.; Jenkins-Smith, Hank C.
Public policy debates often involve complex, high-stakes issues in which the views of experts within scientific and technical communities play a prominent role. Disputes over appropriate governmental actions concerning global climate change, genetically modified organisms, nuclear waste disposal, cloning, and stem cell research highlight the political importance that can be attached to debates within scientific communities. Not only do these debates influence the kinds of assumed causal relationships that underlie policy alternatives (e.g., the link between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and global temperatures, or the dispersal patterns of pollens from genetically modified corn), but also those appointed to advisory and technical policy making positions are often chosen from the participating scientific communities. The appointment to such positions has become an increasingly contentious process; some critics contend that experts’ policy positions have trumped their scientific standing in determining appointments to important science policy boards (Revkin 2004; Mooney 2005).