Wikiversity talk:Research ethics

IRB

 * create an IRB (which would be necessary for any Wikipedia sponsored research involving gathering personal information from research subjects).
 * We will need this for Lunar Boom Town eventually so we can collect user preferences and interest scientifically to improve our game components and ability to mix and match. Also so we can semiautomate diagnostics to help people acquire working permutations of components.  No desperate rush.  We are starting to attract interest in various elements and levels of play but we have quite a ways to go before we get systematic and statistical about feedback and long term data archives. Mirwin 02:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reserach guidelines
Don't forget the Reserach guidelines.Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving insertions to talk page
Hi!

May I suggest that the three new sections to Protecting humans, animals and nature be moved here for discussion and a sampling of views rather than being allowed to remain on the Research ethics resource page. Some discussion is already ongoing in the sections above but consensus has not been sampled as yet. The new section titles are
 * 1) Animal studies,
 * 2) Genetically modified, and
 * 3) Potential weapons. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've made a change to animal studies to include primary sources by a university. If you still feel a need to bring it here, you may do so, but I'd really like to keep it there, however, suggestions welcome. Note, the GM section is altered from the resource page. I admit, I know little about these two areas below. Marshallsumter, what is your suggestion for these? - Sidelight12 Talk 02:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've placed the Animal studies section below. The research ethics page does mention concern for humans and animals. I've also created a new section for environmental impact statements. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I moved those portions of our earlier discussions from above to their respective sections below so I can follow what's been discussed. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Animal studies

 * "Data from invasive animal studies is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it is limited to information that is cataloged by Pubmed, or that is published by a university, a medical institution, a reliable secondary source, or a reliable tertiary source. The information may be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity. Invasive animal studies include in vivo and ex vivo studies. The only exception that can be made is for cadaver research, for rare exceptions, and this must pass IRB. In situ, in papyru, in vitro, and in silico studies are allowed by any source, including the editor, as long as no harm is done to animals." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Invasive live animal studies are not allowed that are conducted by the editor or affiliated party. Animal cruelty is not advocated by Wikiversity." These are the actual two paragraphs as returned to Research ethics by Sidelight12. Below is the older version. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Data from invasive animal studies is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it is limited to information that is cataloged by Pubmed, or that is published by a university, a reliable secondary source, or a reliable tertiary source. The information may be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity. Invasive animal studies include in vivo and ex vivo studies. In situ studies are allowed by any source, including the editor, as long as no harm is done to animals.
 * Invasive animal studies are not allowed that are conducted by the editor or affiliated party.
 * Animal cruelty is not advocated by Wikiversity."


 * Take a look at the edit I made to animal studies. If someone did a study and its on pubmed, by all means use it, and interpret it. The purpose was to discourage someone from vivisecting an animal to post their findings on here. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

One example you mentioned concerns the hypothetical situation where an editor presents dissection results on live animals (or recently killed animals) as part of their own research effort. It has been quite a while since I took a zoology class (it was in high school, a pre-college class). One of the projects we had to perform was the dissection of a fish to expose its brain and nerve cord along its back. If such a class were conducted here either as part of a zoology class or as part of a medical class, would you want this class prevented from being at Wikiversity? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say yes to prevent the class that does this, but no prevention on an anatomy class. Wikiversity has no way of overseeing or the ability to oversee a high school or other project. Wikiversity doesn't prevent the school from doing it, it just shouldn't be published here. If anyone wants to document the anatomy of a fish, there are many books that already do that, and this reference can be added to Wikiversity. The gains in personal knowledge are already documented in books, and the ethical consequences outweigh this. If someone is knowledgeable of a study like this from highschool, let them use a book to reference what they know. To have a class on anatomy is perfectly acceptable, everything (or almost everything needed for the knowledge is in a book or other publication). In an extreme scenario for wiki-students to dissect an animal to follow a wiki-teachers instructions is irresponsible. The teacher cannot supervise the students. I feel strongly about this proposed guideline, and less so of the others. Are you saying if a teacher did this and posted pictures? This is a small amount of data inclusion that is documented in books, and the ethical consequences outweighs it. - - Sidelight12 Talk 21:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allowing this could also draw negative attention to the contributor from groups or legal entities, harming Wikiversity. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In the particular high-school class I described, the fish were commercially supplied as dead and preserved in formaldehyde. None of us were advised where the fish were from or how they were killed. They may have been from a fish farm. They were a common variety of fish. Students here at Wikiversity who wished to learn dissection technique would need to perform such a dissection at home to experience how to do it and accomplish the surgical exposure successfully. No matter how good the textbook, it cannot replace hands-on experience, especially where developing surgical skill is concern. Such skill is useful both to a zoologist and to a surgeon. We watched the teacher perform the access surgery and then went to our dissection tables to perform the same technique ourselves. It is likely the instructor would place a video here in the public domain for the students to watch as often as necessary to understand each step. If I remember correctly the fish was a species of perch that may have also been used for food commercially. I believe the fish were adults. Does any of this affect your decisions? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish to keep the proposal as it is. The only part that might be adjusted is ex vivo/cadavers. Still a rule would need to be set on this. It would be impossible for Wikiversity to monitor how studies are conducted according to this rule(s). Also, anyone who is serious about going into surgery would do the training at their medical institution or university. It is irrelevant for Wikiversity to do that task, and Wikiversity is not imposing on someone from doing the research at their school. Do you understand the ethical consequences of not having a guideline like this? - Sidelight12 Talk 01:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This should stay as is. Let the school do that. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * With a view to the current text under Animal studies presently d by me to be allowed to remain on the Community source page, I would like to offer this. Original research by definition is not yet "cataloged by Pubmed, or that is published by a university, a medical institution, a reliable secondary source, or a reliable tertiary source.", if it were, it would not be original research! Please consider the following partial texts from already published formerly original research. These are from Google Scholar:

There are about 1,150 such results. Independent of where these studies were conducted, such research here including visual descriptions of the minimally invasive surgery prior to publication anywhere, would be in violation of the above. Why should such research be prevented here that is permitted at a brick and mortar institution? Keeping the above condition currently under Animal studies out of the research ethics would have allowed the research in these 1,150 or so published studies to have been performed here also as learning resources prior to publication! Minimally invasive studies followed by dissection is currently ethically allowed! It should also be allowed here! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "Endoscopic minimally invasive thyroidectomy: first clinical experience" 2010 - contains "To verify the safety and feasibility of the method, an animal trial was conducted in August 2008. Surgery was performed securely on five pigs, with very low blood loss. The postoperative behavior with special regard for feeding and pain reaction was normal until dissection."
 * 2) "Initial United States clinical trial of robotically assisted endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting" 2000 - contains "Successful endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting: an acute large animal trial."
 * 3) "Feasibility of endoscopic transgastric distal pancreatectomy in a porcine animal model" 2001 - contains "Animal trial at a tertiary-care academic hospital."


 * I have removed the Animal studies subparagraph per discussions on the colloquium page. Here's a further example of what original research would not be permitted:


 * 1) "Effects of ovulation induction on ovarian morphology: an animal study" 2004 - which contains "We have not found any experimental animal trial that evaluates whether the ovulation induction causes preneoplastic or postneoplastic ovarian lesion." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is ethical? Your view of ethics is only from a original research point of view. This is not ethical from a dignity, respect for life, or suffering standpoint. What you are saying is not ethics. The point of my edit was not to give brick and mortar institutions or pubmed power. This and hospitals is where most studies come from. BTW, the third example made would be allowed by the rules, because it is done by a medical institution. "Initial United States clinical trial of robotically assisted endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting", "Effects of ovulation induction on ovarian morphology: an animal study" and "Feasibility of endoscopic transgastric distal pancreatectomy in a porcine animal model" are cataloged by pubmed, so the proposed rules allow this. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So to summarise, you have (valid) concerns about Wikiversity allowing publication of original research in ethically controversial areas, such as animal and human research. Could the guideline simply be that all original research conducted on animals / humans must be approved by an institutional review board (IRB) or institutional ethics committee (IEC) etc.? I don't think it necessarily has to be published by a university etc... For example: "Original research involving humans or animals is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it has been approved by an institutional review board (IRB) or institutional ethics committee (IEC).  Original research is defined as research not yet cataloged by Pubmed, published by a university, a medical institution, a reliable secondary source, or a reliable tertiary source." Thoughts?


 * Out of interest, is this a hypothetical problem or have people actually tried to publish unethical studies on wikiversity to prompt this debate? Bron766 (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So far its hypothetical. I see how Wikipedia works, and some of its rules that try to restrict published primary sources are in stalemate, and I disagree with editors there who delete well published data.


 * It may not seem like it, but that might may be more restrictive. Something that is widely known from pubmed, which I believe has its ethical standards, may have to go through this process. A university seems to have its problems, but that's where all other primary studies comes from, most from pubmed. I wanted a solid rule to prevent sacrificial invasive studies on live animals that was not overview-ed by a high standard institution. Mostly, it was inclusive, if those primary sources didn't cover it, a secondary published source would cover it, if its important enough. Cadaver research done by the editor can be up for review. Studies where monkeys are administered medicine, but they are not mutilated nor sacrificed might have been allowed (in situ). That can either be allowed or up for wiki review. Obviously a lot of this applies to people, which sounds silly to mention because its too obvious, but then again there is a such thing as a black-market medical community. Wikipedia considers the editor's interpretation as original research too, so that is unrestricted on wikiversity. Thanks for your concern.


 * I found only one problem with pubmed affiliates, its that literature may take a year before it reaches it. So anything from a high quality journal might also be used. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have both sat on review boards and had my proposals and original research assessed or reviewed (at the end of a grant period) by a review board. Although an occasional board member is or attempts to be objective, most really are political and should not have the final say. The boards I'm referring to were all advisory only (every one knows about the politics anyway!). They never were allowed to have the final say. Ultimately, any such decision rests with the principal investigator or the funding institution. We already have peer review by request. That really is the best system! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It was to automatically allow pubmed, published secondary and tertiary sources without any voting necessary. This doesn't apply to inventions, theories, space exploration and etc that doesn't have anything to do with animals, no restriction on that. If you've sat at irb meetings, then don't you have an advantage? I am dubious about university published research, since I notice its only professors who get credit (when it is said this is done during class time), when its hard to believe they stumbled upon it themselves (its more likely some student/s came in with ideas/work and had a lot to do with it). Cadaver research can be lightened up on, but it still doesn't escape the responsibility by ethics. Really, something close to what I proposed needs to be a guideline. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do have an advantage, thank you for the compliment! That's why I made the advisory only recommendation for all your areas of concern including animals. The overall R&D community whether original or contentious has reached a somewhat moving consensus on each of these. That's why opinions such as yours are so important. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact statements
":[A note to make here on environmental impact statements - use or lack of.]"

For certain research activities in the United States, an environmental impact statement is often required. Here's an example:

In Arizona there is somewhat a shortage of drinking water. One possible way of solving this would be to create a water reservoir, say between two of the mountain ranges south of Tucson. Between two such ranges is a riparian area designated as a preserve because specific species of frogs, toads, fish and other wildlife occur there naturally. An environmental impact statement would be required on this riparian area before any effort could be considered regarding building a reservoir. Does this scenario in some way touch on your concerns about such statements or the lack of? Original research could be conducted here at Wikiversity regarding
 * 1) construction of the reservoir,
 * 2) movement of the riparian area (about one fiftieth of the area of the reservoir) to a higher location on an inlet of the reservoir, and
 * 3) bringing about sufficient rainfall recovery to make the reservoir functional for drinking water and recreation.

Am I understanding your concerns? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This one doesn't address my concerns. I have little opinion on what to make of this one. For clarification is this saying, an environmental impact statement is required by the US government for this particular study? If an organization does this, there is no restriction on a wikieditor documenting it for wikiversity. Original research would be allowed for the three criteria listed.
 * adding "[A note to make here on environmental impact statements - use or lack of.]" wasn't my edit. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the riparian area is a State of Arizona preserve and Arizona may not require an impact statement, but would probably seek to preserve the riparian region in some form. My guess is this would not change your opinion and you would allow all three research programs, as would I. I would require that the research demonstrate a successful transfer of a similar riparian area to higher altitude just in case the increased altitude may affect one or more species. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified

 * "Experimental data on genetically modification is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it is cataloged in Pubmed, or published by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia. In other words, data on genetic modification experiments is allowed if it is indexed in pubmed, or published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia. The information may also be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity."

Hi!

I believe we may need to clarify this section a bit.

One topic that is currently receiving much press is GMO (genetically modified organic) food. Is this what we are banning?

Unfortunately, one way to cure or remedy "diseases" like Parkinson's may require genetic modification of host DNA for reintroduction to host cells so that the missing sections of DNA that result in the disease are no longer present. Should we ban this type of research? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we can discuss this. Data on gmo is allowed if it was indexed in pubmed, or published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia. The editor's interpretation of this is also ok. I was trying to ban studies made by the contributor to be posted directly to Wikiversity (but not for most other subjects). - - Sidelight12 Talk 01:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to focus on the phrase "unless it is cataloged in Pubmed, or published by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia. In other words, data on genetic modification experiments is allowed if it is indexed in pubmed, or published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia." As you probably know most of my resources here on Wikiversity are designed to describe the state of the art or science. But, my original research will go beyond this. While I want the journals I submit to put the paper(s) in as open access so they may also be studied here, they may not be cataloged in Pubmed unless the journal requests it. While I hope to get a grant to at least cover page charges, the publication obviously will not be by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia. Restricting original research to the scrutiny of brick and mortar universities means the same thing as handing it over to them so some professor may steel it and put his/her own name on it. And, I'm not kidding about this. It happens all the time! It's happened to me!


 * Consider my conjecture about a remedy for Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's is caused by missing portions of DNA for specific genes. Hypothetically, an inverse transposon (IT) may be used to carry a portion of DNA into a host euchromatin, the IT then travels along the template strand, snips at the appropriate nucleotide and inserts the needed strand. The inverse transposon then travels away to become food. That one cell is remedied of Parkinson's. When some 98% or more of host cells are so treated, the host is likely to be and remain remedied of the disease for life and future children. You won't find this on pubmed because it's beyond the current state of the science. Would you vote to prevent this original research? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Point taken about the university problem. I am not as opinionated on this one as I am on animal research. For this one, do you think an exception should be made for the IRB to be used to allow GM experiments here? Once its here, I believe that should give ownership of who wrote the material to the author and to open source (but I'm not so certain its a guarantee). What do you suggest? I am more lenient on this one. You brought up a point, that could go for another rule, not related to this, but it is regarding school assignments and student's work (I bet neither of us or anyone else want to discuss that one). - Sidelight12 Talk 21:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I may find gm that turns off a gene, or modifies a gene without contamination from other species genes acceptable (it could be modeled from genes of other species in the same kingdom, but not contaminated by them), this could be allowed without restriction by an irb board. I think an IRB board should be used for exceptions. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

New suggestion

 * "Experimental data on genetically modification is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it is: cataloged in Pubmed, published by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia, or passed wikiversity's IRB review. In other words, data on genetic modification experiments is allowed if it is: indexed in pubmed, published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia, or passes Wikiversity's IRB review. The information may also be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity." - Sidelight12 Talk 22:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The fundamental problem is still the same "unless it is: cataloged in Pubmed, published by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia, or passed wikiversity's IRB review. In other words, data on genetic modification experiments is allowed if it is: indexed in pubmed, published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia, or passes Wikiversity's IRB review." You are inviting obstructionist censuring, piracy, or worse. We have been genetically modifying ourselves and other life on Earth for millennia. At least in original research, these modifications can be studied. Perhaps, what I should add is that the original researcher bears the responsibility to be sure the research is ethical where, when, and in what it is to be published or presented as a resource. While I might ask you or another colleague to read a preprint or pre-submission manuscript, I would only do this if I was thoroughly convinced that you are ethical. Does this help? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought it was clear this was not referring to natural selection by farmers or grafting. This is mostly about introducing genes from a plant into an animal, or genes from a spider into a goat. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential weapons
Traditional nuclear energy details are not allowed. Even if the intent is for safe generation of energy, there is potential for this information to be misused. There is a reason the U.S. patent department doesn't patent this information, doing so would allow access to it.

Nuclear energy research

Hi!

I have some comments and questions regarding the nuclear energy research ethics. I have worked in the nuclear energy research environment, including analyzing samples from the core of Three Mile Island.

Research connected with using nuclear reactors for power generation should be an acceptable research topic. Most concerns focus on the production of weapons grade fissionable uranium or plutonium. I don't believe a neutron bomb was ever perfected. The key point in addition to weapons grade fissionable materials is making a bomb that won't explode while it's being made. Some critics also want research connected with breeder reactors restrained because under certain circumstances a breeder can be used to make weapons grade fissionable materials, while in others, they can be used to eliminate all radioactive wastes except tritium (usually in superheavy water). All anyone has to do is make a sure-bottomed lake and let the tritium set for 11 days and it's gone. It even kills harmful bacteria and other microbes in the water and makes the water perfectly drinkable.

Questions:
 * 1) How focused do we want our research ethics to be regarding nuclear energy research?
 * 2) During the Cold War, researchers were, and may still be, working on nuclear rocket power alternatives for deep space high velocity travel. Should we prevent this type of research?
 * 3) What alternative methods, especially those that are environmentally safe, should we consider regarding the disposal of radioactive wastes? By the way, most coal burning plants produce more radioactive wastes than nuclear reactors. The radioactive isotopes are in the coal.
 * 4) Is it okay to perform research on isotope preparation (radiotracers) for biological studies? I assume it is, but these isotopes are produced in nuclear reactors.
 * 5) What decision should we make about high-flux neutron reactors? These are used to produce neutron beams for crystallography and chemical analysis by neutron-activation analysis. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick Google Scholar search using "nuclear reactor" and "patent" as key words. Google produced about 51,300 patents; for example,
 * 1) Nuclear reactor RV Moore - US Patent 2,863,815, 1958.
 * 2) NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE AND CONTROL ELEMENT ARRANGEMENT RJ Rickert - US Patent 3,481,832, 1969.
 * 3) Shield for nuclear reactor vessel AL Gaines - US Patent 3,744,660, 1973.
 * 4) Nuclear reactor M Treshow - US Patent 2,999,059, 1961.
 * 5) Installation for measuring and controlling a nuclear reactor J Brecy - US Patent 3,769,156, 1973.
 * 6) Device for supporting a nuclear reactor core D Costes - US Patent 3,953,289, 1976.
 * 7) Nuclear reactor fuel element assemblies LF Raven - US Patent 3,886,038, 1975.
 * 8) Nuclear reactor installation UD Ing - DE Patent 3,212,266, 1983. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My concern is not to be restrictive, but it is to think ahead for safety concerns. I'm concerned with nuclear energy knowledge also being used for bombs, the same way countries say they want nuclear energy, but other nations worry about their use of bombs (I'm not worried about Iran, this is only a comparison, I'm worried about individuals/organizations doing this). There are a lot of studies that should be done for space travel, but isn't this kept secret by the government? Not all nuclear subjects should be banned: nuclear medicine is fine; disposal of nuclear waste might be ok, chemical analysis is fine. Too many questions were asked. As for why these patents are available, I don't know, I heard that the US patent office does not patent material on nuclear weapons, they rather keep it a trade secret. If cold fusion is safe, and has no potential for harm, then I have no qualms against it. Honestly, I know nothing about cold fusion. Hence why I asked, and not went to outright delete it. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First let me say that I glanced at the View History before you entered the three subjects: Animal studies, Genetically modified, and Potential weapons. The IRB seems like a limited but a good idea. Adding these three subtopics may appear more like an attempt to do the IRBs job for them. I would suggest a separate resource as you have suggested with Institutional Review Board, where your views can be recorded for consideration rather than being put here prior to any effort at consensus.


 * Regarding nuclear energy research, I believe your concerns express popular views. I conducted my career without being exposed to highly classified material because my views are novel on those matters so I do not know what is classified about making nuclear weapons. Usually, agencies and companies working on classified matters do not transmit this information to the US patent office. The patents that are there are open resources. Just as an aside, today many conventional weapons pack a far deadlier punch locally than nuclear weapons. I doubt any original research we do here on any aspect of nuclear energy is going to accidently help individuals or organizations to make a nuclear bomb. If such is started unwittingly, Wikiversity will receive a take down notice from the NSA or DoD.


 * For the other two topics: Animal studies and Genetically modified organisms, I would ask that these paragraphs also be transferred to an IRB resource as your opinions before changes to these guidelines. I would be happy to toss in my two cents worth there.


 * Space travel has always been an open research area. As a former Fellow with the British Interplanetary Society, I enjoyed considering many alternatives and believe Wikiversity should also be an open research resource. NASA also has open research on space travel propulsion systems. The early work using nuclear rocket propulsion was declassified years ago and now is another aspect of ion propulsion. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can cooperate on this. Just wanted to be on top of this. Your input is important. Many nuclear subjects are ok. I'm for consensus, and for input on this, limited talk happens on the talk pages here. Which page is IRB? What are your two cents on it? - Sidelight12 Talk 03:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding an IRB, let's say I'm conducting original research on a faster-than-light propulsion system. If this device got into the hands of a weaponer (a person or organization that has the expertise to turn just about anything into a weapon) it could be used to circumvent retaliatory strikes. Should we ban the original research or let the powers at be take care of the weaponers. As someone who would like to safely journey around the Galaxy, I would vote for the latter. When such a research effort is reviewed by an IRB, it receives a political decision. An IRB that recognizes the weaponer scenario may vote to allow the original research to proceed. Or, it may want to know too many details so as to help a weaponer steel the research. The function of an IRB is not to prevent original research but to point out the obvious such as the only thing design A can be used for is to hurt people, like the Saturday night special. Yet, a bunch of people in Syria being terrorized by any of the combatants might be begging for the plans on how to build one. About the only thing an IRB can do is advise how to direct the research so that it minimizes the likelihood a weaponer may steel it and hurt people. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Nuclear weapons today are more of a terror weapon than a real threat. Countries who want these bombs want to be free of nuclear terrorizers or they want to be nuclear terrorizers. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An IRB should be able to reject materials if they are dangerous. My concerns here are data not allowed to be patented by the US and anything that would grab the DoD's attention. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * See my comments above under New suggestion. Here's the problem. The US prevents patents for many reasons, not always ethical, that's why so many inventors get patents elsewhere first like Switzerland, Japan, or even Norway. Again, any IRB or international version is political. It's the responsibility of the OR principal investigator only. No one else should be allowed to interfere except if invited. A cotton ball is dangerous in the hands of a weaponer. Let it grab DoD's attention. It's your tax dollars at work if you pay taxes in the US. Don't do their guessing for them. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, my concern about this is anything that would grab the DoD's attention. and anything that cant be patented by an UN nation. I'm not talking about patent office politics, I think you should already know that. Also, this is not about patents of anything else. A cotton ball is not even a comparison. If something has to catch the attention of the DoD first, what a lack of responsibility. IRB was your idea. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for separate existing page
What do you think should happen with this page? Wikiversity ethics
 * I propose to make it into Wikiversity: namespace. At the very least add hat-notes to redirect it to Wikiversity: pages. It can also apply to scholarly ethics. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe when the colon is used the resource may become a guideline or policy where support needs to be generated. Right now Wikiversity ethics is only a resource anyone can contribute to. I'm not familiar enough with Wikiversity procedures to know any of this for certain. A resource on ethics addressing wiki ethics may be better than the current title. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusive animal studies
New proposition
 * "All studies from any database under National Center for Biotechnology Information (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) or affiliated journals is allowed: this includes Pubmed, Pubmed Central, and The National Library of Medicine. Other allowed animal studies must be from reliable secondary (press releases included) or reliable third party sources. The information may be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity. In situ, in papyru, in vitro, and in silico studies are allowed by any source, including the editor, as long as no harm is done to animals. Any other animal research can be challenged.


 * The restriction is against cruel animal experimentation. These measures also obviously apply to humans."

Wikipedia doesn't have the resources, efficiency, oversight, nor jurisdiction to control its own IRB for this. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)