Timeline for Is it possible to get IRB approval after the fact?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2021 at 18:41 | answer | added | James | timeline score: 7 | |
| Oct 18, 2018 at 16:36 | history | edited | Robert Columbia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarify
|
| Oct 18, 2018 at 5:25 | comment | added | Zach Lipton | It's also useful to know that the penalty could be that serious, because somebody at risk of losing their job would be well advised to stop and get advice from a lawyer and/or union rep before talking about the situation (it may well be defensible, it may well not be, but that's why you get the advice first), while somebody who just thinks they may have some unpublishable data could be make matters worse for themselves by walking into an investigation unaware of its seriousness. | |
| Oct 18, 2018 at 0:23 | answer | added | Matt | timeline score: 13 | |
| Oct 17, 2018 at 16:45 | answer | added | Scott Seidman | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 17, 2018 at 13:35 | comment | added | StrongBad | @RebeccaJ.Stones your question was about wanting to make sure you did not break the rules, so suggesting you could get fired if you break the rules, seems unfair. Here, the rules have been broken and the OP mentions one relatively minor penalty. I thought it was important to point out there is a much larger potential penalty for breaking the rules. | |
| Oct 17, 2018 at 13:01 | answer | added | StrongBad | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 17, 2018 at 4:48 | answer | added | user96258 | timeline score: 33 | |
| Oct 17, 2018 at 4:35 | comment | added | Rebecca J. Stones | Can we please drop the "you're going to lose your job" talk and stop speculating on what the OP's circumstances are? I received similar comments once, and it's upsetting and feels somewhat threatening. | |
| Oct 17, 2018 at 4:15 | answer | added | Fomite | timeline score: 31 | |
| Oct 17, 2018 at 3:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/1052393983329140742 | ||
| Oct 17, 2018 at 2:20 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | It might be relevant why IRB approval wasn't obtained. Did the researchers believe, reasonably and in good faith, that it wasn't needed? Did they try to get it, but unforeseen circumstances prevented the IRB from considering the case or giving approval? Or is it the case that they knew, or should have known, that it was required, but intentionally went ahead without it? | |
| Oct 17, 2018 at 1:53 | history | edited | Robert Columbia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 517 characters in body; added 141 characters in body; added 29 characters in body
|
| Oct 17, 2018 at 1:38 | history | edited | Robert Columbia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 262 characters in body; added 32 characters in body; added 8 characters in body; deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Oct 17, 2018 at 1:33 | history | asked | Robert Columbia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |