The mere presence of IRBs should discourage bad submissions however you are welcome to contact your local review board and ask for their juiciest rejects.

This has got to be one of the worst takes on IRBs I’ve ever heard.

The basic argument here is that rules are ineffective because bad actors ignore them.

- Before IRBs, unethical experiments were done by professors and grad students with disposal to all of the resources they normally have.

- People don’t always know what the ethical implications of their study is, or how it could negatively impact participants.

- The IRBs are not there to stop research. They are there to help people figure out how to conduct research ethically.

> really bad/unethical experiments are done with no oversight by private entities

Yes. For example, every time we see someone here talking about A/B testing, they're talking about human experimentation. Do these humans buy more often when shown A or B?

I consider it unethical as they don't even inform test subjects nor do they seek consent. Unfortunately, I seem to be a minority.

I don't think this argument invalidates the concept of review boards though. If anything it supports their expansion into national or international law.

I am grateful for the protection provided by IRBs and I understand exactly what kind of horrors they protect people from. They are an overwhelming positive force for good for science and society.