I non-ironically like the idea that IRBs should have to undergo a rigorous cost-benefit analysis before being set up. They do a lot of harm! Are there sufficient compensating benefits? It's super unclear.
One (rough) attempt at a answer: "the cost-benefit calculation looks like - save a tiny handful of people per year, while killing 10,000 to 100,000 more, for a price tag of $1.6 billion." Seems bad! But maybe someone else could make a stronger case for them?
I think that there should be IRB approval before you write your blog posts. What if we should valorize the void, and failing to do so is dangerous?
I non-ironically like the idea that IRBs should have to undergo a rigorous cost-benefit analysis before being set up. They do a lot of harm! Are there sufficient compensating benefits? It's super unclear.
One (rough) attempt at a answer: "the cost-benefit calculation looks like - save a tiny handful of people per year, while killing 10,000 to 100,000 more, for a price tag of $1.6 billion." Seems bad! But maybe someone else could make a stronger case for them?
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-from-oversight-to-overkill?r=jitor&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I agree! Just another example of pernicious status quo bias.