Monday, August 12, 2013 Institutional Review Blog
“In a brief article in Commentary, Philip Hamburger summarizes his case against IRBs, made in much greater detail in his 2004 article, “The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards,” Supreme Court Review (2004): 271–354. In this version, he argues that the regulation of human subjects research “is the most widespread and systematic assault on freedom of speech and the press in the nation’s history. McCarthyism was more overtly political, but IRB licensing is more pervasive and methodical, and its consequences are far more lethal.”
[Hamburger, Philip, “The Censorship You’ve Never Heard Of.” Commentary, July 2013, 21-26]
“The licensing of speech and the press is profoundly unconstitutional. Other methods of controlling speech, such as after-the-fact penalties, are unconstitutional only when they are used in dangerous ways. But licensing—the requirement that one get permission before speaking or publishing—is always dangerous and therefore predictably unconstitutional. This method of control is itself a threat.”
Philip Hamburger — July 2013
How is such a thing possible?
“The Public/Private Surveillance Partnership”
Bruce Schneier August 5, 2013
“There are two types of laws in the U.S., each designed to constrain a different type of power: constitutional law, which places limitations on government, and regulatory law, which constrains corporations. Historically, these two areas have largely remained separate, but today each group has learned how to use the other’s laws to bypass their own restrictions. The government uses corporations to get around its limits, and corporations use the government to get around their limits.”
So the answer to Henry Beecher’s question: the one about how to compel a person to participate in HSR?