Science ethics as a bureaucratic problem: IRBs,Rules, and Failures of control

“Institutionalized science ethics” refers to the statutory, professional and institution-based ethical standards that guide and constrain scientists' research work. The primary institution responsible for implementing institutionalized science ethics is the Institutional Review Board. We examine the limitations of IRBs and institutionalized science ethics, using bureaucratic theory and, especially, theory related to the development and enactment of rules. We suggest that due to the very character of rules-based systems, improvements in IRB outcomes are unlikely to be achieved through either more or better rules or even by bureaucratic reform. Instead, we suggest that improvements in human subject protection can best be advanced through increased participation. Ours is not a call for more participation by the general public but participation, via “Participant Review Boards” of persons who are eligible, by the protocols of the research in question, to serve as subjects. This provides a level of legitimacy and face validity that cannot be obtained by IRB affiliates, even by “external representatives.” In making these points, we review a recent science ethics controversy, the KKI/Johns Hopkins lead paint study. In spite of being approved by IRBs, the study resulted in a civil lawsuit that reached the Maryland Court of Appeals. The case illustrates the limits of institutionalized science ethics and the bureaucracies created for their enactment. The case also underscores the complex and equivocal nature of the ethical guidelines established under the National Research Act. We are grateful to – for providing helpful comments on an earlier draft.     

Risk and Trouble: Adam Smith on Profit and the Protagonists of Capitalism

To better account for deepening global inequalities, political theory could greatly enhance empirical and normative work by answering a fundamental question: What is profit? When engaging political‐economic questions, however, theorists often begin thinking from the concept of private property. This, I argue, has obscured the central role of profit as an organizing category for capitalist societies since the eighteenth century. Grounded in the dynamic and uncertain processes of production and accumulation, profit displaces the proprietary citizen and subject of natural rights and gives rise to new social protagonists, who lay claim to increasingly asymmetric rewards. In particular, the article calls attention to a dangerous contemporary sensibility, which sees profit as inherently unlimited. As a viable, robust alternative, it presents Adam Smith's idea of profit as a regular, uniform rate that acts as a productive constraint on business activity, shapes character, and safeguards against risk by widely distributing its costs.     

A “very interested” third party intervenes in a divorce settlement

Conclusion There is no universal formula for dealing with the painful products of a bitter divorce. Mixed motives, distorted perceptions, and irreconcilable differences are all interwoven into an intricate web of confused and conflicting emotions. The web eventually becomes so complex that often tangible issues cannot be pulled apart from intangible ones. Mediation in such situations cannot be seen as a panacea. The individual propensities and dissimilarities that originally lead spouses to separate may obstruct future interaction as well. A third party in such situations may, however, serve a catalytic role in fostering movement toward agreement by identifying the issues, increasing the understanding of the problem, reducing the risk of loss of face, and facilitating the efficient use of communication channels. One goal is to bring conflicting parties to think clearly about their own feelings, expectations, and desires as well as those of their opponent. Striving to achieve superordinate goals and recognizing that common interests often exist beneath the turbulent surface of positional arguments will ultimately move parties closer toward agreement. Resolving the conflict depends not only on the effectiveness of the third party, but on the willingness of the disputants to commit themselves to an exhaustive search for a solution. Lisa J. Hirsch is a senior at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. 02155. She expects to receive her bachelor's degree, with a concentration in psychology, this spring. She plans to continue her studies toward a doctorate in psychology and eventually to specialize in counseling for children of divorced parents.