I'd be interested in an example of what you mean about bioethics changing the scientific paradigm, as I'm not quite sure what you mean there... Most ethicists would expect research to be scientifically valid to be ethical (otherwise there is no justification for the risks).

To your second point I wouldn't say it's about providing peace of mind in response to a fear of science, but about providing a check on the ethical judgments of scientists. Although most scientists are highly ethical in their work, they do have a vested interest in it and like all people they will have a particular view on what is ethical. Having an independent group of people assess the ethics of research allows different ethical views to come together and reach a middle ground that is more broadly acceptable. I guess the existence of IRBs is partly founded by the view that it is better to have some inconvenience to science to minimize the risk of harm, than to leave that risk unchecked.

It's a real discipline in the sense that there are regular conferences attended by thousands of acadmics teaching at universities worldwide, peer reviewed journals, and books, a number of professional association, and so on. So it qualifies as a bona fide academic discpline as much as any other discipline out there. I don't know whether bioethics provides peace of mind, but I can assure you that that is not the primary purpose of the discipline, which is rather to investigate conceptual and ethical problems arising from the advances in medicine, the life sciences, and biotechnology. These are serious endeavors which have significant impact on how we live.

Research ethics and the work of IRB's represent a good portion of the work of bioethics as a field, and many bioethicists do serve on IRB's. However, there are much more than that. In order for an IRB to function most effectively you need the best research and scholarship and philosophical arguments in order to form your judgment and understanding most effectively. That is where bioethics comes in.

Dear Ramon

As I`m the IRB Coordinator (Institution with more than 1000 beds) I`m kind of surprise with the question: ".......social placebo.."

Bioethics is

“….. the discipline dealing with the ethical implications of biological research and applications, especially in medicine…”

“…. branch of applied ethics that studies the philosophical, social, and legal issues arising in medicine and the life sciences….”

May be I`m wrong but it´s unreasonable to carry out any research, clinical trials,etc involving human being with no IRB assistance .

The IRB primary duty is not "... a discipline that attempts to change the scientific paradigm ..."

Currently there are multiple visions of what should be bioethics. Bioethics lacks an epistemological status. People who work in bioethics does transversely, this means that bioethics is not their primary activity. Would dare anyone done a surgery with a neurosurgeon whose principal activity is the automotive mechanic and was 20% of time is dedicated to surgery.

I think the analogy is misguided. Certainly nobody would want to trust the life of a patient to an unqualified surgeon, but in bioethics the task is not to perform a surgery, but to get clearer about the values that one has when one thinks about the issues that concern all of us. For example, distribution of health care resources is one of the topics in bioethics. Which direction should society take: concentrating the resources to only those who can pay for them and let those who can't (or don't have the insurance) fall by the way side, or distributing the resources so that the poor have a respectable standard whether they afford to pay health insurances or not? This is not an operation for surgeons; this is for all of us, and bioethics is a discipline that attempts to make these attempts more systematic.

I do agree with Soraj.

I'm inclined to say that this analogy is unsuitable for the case.

Bioethics is not a monolithic area and its modern development does not own an abstract knowledge and the bioethic diffusion is attributed to the birth of the IRBs . These instances are the visible structure of Bioethics. Many authors consider that is not possible argue that bioethics is a profession or a discipline because takes elements from many areas: biology , medicine, philosophy , law, sociology and anthropology , among other areas . The initial intention of this open question is to try to explore the current state of bioethics based on hermeneutic evidence and in no way apply personalistic positions. And there lies the greatest weakness of the IRBs these are constituted ​​by people who assume and believe , but hard science is not based on a belief system and therefore this aspect of bioethics lacks rebuttable structure , or is not falsifiable and therefore is not a science as postulate by some authors, in addition, the absence of an epistemological statute is another aspect against the consideration of bioethics as a discipline neither a profession.

This is not facebook, I think that we need to dabete this and another questions as scientist, so everyone is invited to discuss and to be in disagree or agree but rate an intervention as negative in this discussion forum is a bit childish and shown evident resistance to this topic. I recommend the book John Evans "The History and Future of Bioethics"

In the institutional environment where most IRBs operate, the IRB panel follows the standard protocol that has been established by an organization to assure that informed consent has been obtained by all human subjects utilized in the "scientific" experiment. Evaluation of "informed consent" can become complicated where the person who is participating in a drug trial (e.g., in the case of an experimental drug) is incapable of giving consent because he or she is suffering from mental or legal (not of emancipated age) incapacity. Moreover, in some societies (previously true in the U.S.) only men have the legal capacity to make binding decisions for their wives or female members of their households. This problem arose when pregnant women inflicted with the HIV/AIDS virus in Sub-Sahara Africa wanted to take an experimental AIDS drug to prevent the dreaded disease from being passed on to their infants in the womb.

It is not difficult to imagine many situations in which obtaining informed consent is complicated by the illiteracy of the human subject or his/her ability to actually fathom the dangers entailed in a particular experimental procedure -- or the fact that when participating in a drug trial, he/she may only receive a placebo.

Ramon, forgive me for taking a purely legalistic look at your question; however, I am an attorney and tend to view most issues in terms of protecting the rights of the weaker party (and holding the stronger party liable for all harm caused).

Gwen

Dear Ramon,

In the Latin American context I understand your question, since the double standard researches performed on vulnerable populations in Latin America are often approved by ethics committees under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry even with serious ethical desviations and without a clear benefit of research subjects ..... Therefore the scientific paradigm of instrumentalization of individuals is not broken, making bioethics often a mere "stamp" of quality, but without protecting vulnerable people.

IRB's are there for a reason, which is a good and necessary one - to protect those who could suffer as a result of the works of scientists doing research. Scientists are naturally quite powerful. They have the money and the expertise that to the eyes of the ordinary people make them look quite awesome. So perhaps they think they could do anything to those who they want to become their research subjects. Perhaps we need a reminder from time to time that the whole idea of research ethics regulations originated from the work of German and Japanese scientists during World War II, who did a lot of atrocious action against prisoners or those whom they considered "subhumans" such as Jews. So they performed experiments such as releasing anthrax or plague bacteria to these prisoners in their development of biological weapons, or putting them in a beer keg filled with ice to find out how tolerant their bodies are against extreme cold, and so on. In fact scientists on the Allied side are no less guilty, as the Tuskagee case shows.

I think the birth of bioethics is a manifestation of the medical current paradigm crisis. It shows the need of multidisciplinary approach to health problems.