Friesen Phoebe, Yusof Aimi Nadia Mohd, Sheehan Mark
Postdoctoral fellow at the Ethox Centre at the University of Oxford.
Medical lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine at the Universiti Teknologi MARA.
Ethics Hum Res. 2019 Jul;41(4):2-14. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500022.
In response to increasing concerns regarding inconsistency in the decision-making of institutional review boards (IRBs), we introduce the decision-maker's dilemma, which arises when complex, normative decisions must be made regularly. Those faced with such decisions can either develop a process of algorithmic decision-making, in which consistency is ensured but many morally relevant factors are excluded from the process, or embrace discretionary decision-making, which makes space for morally relevant factors to shape decisions but leads to decisions that are inconsistent. Based on an exploration of similarities between systems of criminal sentencing and of research ethics review, we argue for a discretionary system of decision-making, even though it leads to more inconsistency than does an algorithmic system. We conclude with a discussion of some safeguards that could improve consistency while still making space for discretion to enter IRBs' decision-making processes.
针对对机构审查委员会（IRB）决策不一致性的日益担忧，我们引入了决策者困境，这种困境在必须定期做出复杂的规范性决策时出现。面临此类决策的人可以选择开发一种算法决策过程，在此过程中确保了一致性，但许多道德相关因素被排除在外；或者采用自由裁量决策，这为道德相关因素影响决策留出了空间，但会导致决策不一致。基于对刑事量刑系统与研究伦理审查系统之间相似性的探讨，我们主张采用自由裁量决策系统，尽管它比算法系统会导致更多的不一致性。我们最后讨论了一些保障措施，这些措施可以在为自由裁量权留出空间以进入IRB决策过程的同时提高一致性。
