"Hard to get approved" my ass. The attacks on the Linux code review process with real harm code and zero safeguards against successfully hijacking a production kernel got approved and the review board even reaffirmed its decision when confronted about it, as far as I remember by claiming that the study wasn't focused medical issues. Did this study focus on medical issues? If not then at least one review board out there would rubber stamp it.
Because one IRB makes a bad decision doesn't mean, in general, deception studies are easy to get approved. Furthermore, this study used an "no human subjects" exemption to avoid a full review - which should not have happened. The Linux code attack study has also roundly criticized in the research community because it was such an abnormal failure of IRB.
> The Linux code attack study has also roundly criticized in the research community because it was such an abnormal failure of IRB.
So how is the board doing? Did its members face any consequences at all or are they still there ready to rubber stamp the next study with full approval and flimsy excuses?
