CLPEX Chat Board

There was an interesting letter to the editor in the latest JFI [69(1), 2019] regarding the lack of consultation of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) by authors publishing about research using humans as subjects. For those not familiar an IRB, it's basically a regulatory legacy of a notably unethical study known as the Tuskegee Experiment. I only know about them because my neighbor is a neuropathology research scientist and is required to have his experiments vetted by one, prior to performing them. IRBs cover both human and animal studies as well as even some questions to students in the academic environment.

The letter's author Dr. Jim Hoerricks in part states:

We performed a quick search of the JFI publisher's database for the search terms "Institutional Review Board" and "IRB." We returned only one article [3] that featured an IRB approval in our search of the JFI's publications from 1988 to 2018.

He also notes:

One JFI article that we discovered, as noted above, [1] involved laboratory employees as test subjects comes with its own set of problems and considerations, as the University of Pittsburg's IRB notes...

and finishes with:

Clearly, in having a policy, the JFI is aware of the Federal Regulations mentioned herein. However, the Editorial Board of the JFI has failed to enforce it's rules, potentially placing the subjects of the studies contained within its pages at risk.

Alan McRoberts responded with:

On behalf of the JFI Editorial Review Board, my office and JFI readers, I thank Dr. Hoerricks for his interest and concern regarding our Research Subjects Protection Policy. Dr. Hoerricks is correct in that I have not strictly enforced the policy and many articles have been published in the last four or five years that should have included an indication of compliance with the policy. This is being corrected and a more stringent adherence to the policy will be forthcoming.

However, I would like to point out to our readers, participants in research studies and researchers that it is not a federal regulation (in the United States) that approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) be obtained for all manuscripts regarding research with human subjects that are to be published in the JFI. Most researchers and authors in academic environments have an IRB available for their use and are encouraged to use those IRBs. Researchers and authors in law enforcement agencies may not have one available and their budgets may not provide adequate resources for a commercial IRB to be used. For those researchers, the JFI policy does allow for alternative methods of compliance with our policy. All researchers and authors should be familiar with our policies if they intend to publish in the JFI. This policy and additional information (see the FAQs) is available on the JFI Submission page on the IAI website.

It feels like the Editor's response is as important for what it doesn't say as what it does say. I read it as 'we didn't do anything wrong, but we'll fix that'. And what it leaves out, specifically the unspecified harm it may have done to people being used as guinea pigs in experiments without their consent. Specifically forensic employees. It is not unheard of for forensic employees to harm themselves when they find out they've made errors

If you look at the JFI FAQ and go to it's Human Subjects Protection Policy, the policy says that:

• if an IRB was used that must be clearly indicated in the manuscript
• if no IRB is available they need to consult ethical guidelines listed and that must be clearly indicated in the manuscript
• if the study is found to be exempt from IRB review, that must be clearly stated in the methods and materials.

Lastly, the document states that:

Signed informed consent forms must be available upon request to the editor of the Journal of Forensic Identification

That being said, let's all participate in a little sleuthing:

Go to this document and when it loads hit Ctrl + F to find the term IRB, Institutional Review Board, Consent, or any other verbiage that lets you know that this was done according to ethical standards. If you're having trouble finding those words, maybe we could search for something like 'covert' which would imply there wasn't consent....like this statement:

Because the collation of individual casework is so difficult in such circumstances, and because of the difficulties in covert testing, this effectively limited the number of participants within this study.

So, I suppose the questions of the day are something like:

Is the IAI open to legal recourse for such action?

Should the editor of the JFI step down for a breech of the IAI's ethical standards like 1.06

Reports to appropriate officials any conflicts between his/her ethical/professional responsibilities and applicable agency policy, law, regulation, or other legal authority

After reading the letter to the editor or this thread is any member in breech of the ethics standard 4.03 by not reporting such behavior to the President of the IAI?

Who is going to be the first on the stand to point out that Dror's research has not been demonstrated to be ethical?



What do you think?

I understand the need for review of plans for experiments on humans to prevent unethical treatment of the subjects. The Tuskegee Experiment was akin to something Dr. Mengele might have devised. But the only "experiments on humans" I can envision in the field of fingerprints would be using volunteers from the department to deposit latents on various surfaces to test new development methods. Either that or testing new inks to take exemplars. I can hardly imagine any hazard in those cases, unless perhaps some new ink formula contained some cancer causing ion.

Boyd, nothing in your post reveals what Dr. Jim Hoerricks thought was so terrible. Can anybody tell us?

I will grant you that next to the Tuskegee Experiment, what Jim Hoerricks is referring to sounds tame. My link was just to provide historical context, not draw an equivalence.

The simple point (I realize that's difficult to get from me sometimes) is that research that hasn't been demonstrated to be ethical should not be published. Until there's an AFIS algorithm that can ID complex latent prints, humans will be the source of research and this will continue to be an issue.

Furthermore, this is an issue of 'say what you do and do what you say'. The JFI recognizes the need for an ethical responsibility of its submitting authors as is evidenced by its requirement in it's own submission guidelines. It didn't hold its authors to such a standard. There's literally no excuse for that.

The more labored point is that IRBs are ubiquitous in every realm of research from Opinion Studies to Clinical Trials, and everything in between. Look at the Associations represented in that list. Just recently in Portland, two professors attempted to get fake papers published in journals they thought to have little scientific merit, and succeeded. Now they are being disciplined for not going through an IRB because the editorial review board who approved these papers were considered covered by...wait for it.... an IRB approval. So, if an Editorial Board is covered by an IRB, you can damn well be sure I, as a forensic practitioner am.

With the advent of citizen science and crowdsourcing in recent years, you may remember a dust up regarding uBiome which had some similar IRB issues as Alan McRoberts defense claims (basically independent researchers outside the university aren't subject to IRBs). That Scientific American blog link states:

We were informed (correctly) that IRBs are only required for federally funded projects, clinical trials, and those who seek publication in peer-reviewed journals.

The last time I checked the JFI was considered a peer reviewed journal. So, between its own submission guides and the fact that its listed as a peer reviewed journal, I'd say it's pretty important. At least it is to those who want their research considered among the norms of scientific practice. I would argue that this also falls under the NAS Report's larger issue about bringing forensic disciplines in line with accepted scientific norms, of which this is a part.

Lastly, I think there's some real world, forward looking implications that Steve and I were talking about yesterday. Since there has been discussion about blind proficiency testing. Would that need Informed Consent? Especially since proficiency tests (think CTS 1995) have been discussed in the research literature for quite some time. With CTS though, you know it's a test. What about when you don't?

Boyd Baumgartner wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:50 am The simple point (I realize that's difficult to get from me sometimes) . . . . . . .

Really? I hadn't noticed.

Are you saying, strictly speaking, that a supervisor should do an IRB study before assigning a blind verification in order to first assess the risk of psychologically damaging an LPE when blind verification is utilized? If a supervisor or management fails to do the requisite IRB and the two LPEs arrive at different conclusions, and one of them suffers anxiety, could that LPE then sue the department for failure to consider the consequences of blind verification without a prior IRB?

Did Alice Maceo violate the mandate for IRB by her failure to conduct such an assessment before she had her husband touch the glass coffee table so she could film the touch from beneath in order to analyze the distortion in the resultant latent print? After all, she published in a peer reviewed journal. LOCK HER UP!!

Dr. Borracho wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:20 am Did Alice Maceo violate the mandate for IRB by her failure to conduct such an assessment before she had her husband touch the glass coffee table so she could film the touch from beneath in order to analyze the distortion in the resultant latent print? After all, she published in a peer reviewed journal. DON'T PUBLISH HER PAPER UNTIL SHE GETS APPROVAL FROM AN IRB

Fixed it for you.

Even Teachers need to consult an IRB before asking their students questions. While your joke is well taken, the standard isn't the relation of one person to another, it's whether or not the data collected will be used to generalize results and published in a peer reviewed journal.

Two points:

• Fingerprints wants to sit at the big kids' table of science, maybe those holding themselves out as leaders should quit wearing their napkins in their shirt like a bib.
• The IAI wanted to file ethics charges against anyone who posted on the Cert Test thread, so by their own standards ethics are important.....until they're the focus of such ethics and then they're just discounted, because.....'excellence'

Side Note: I'm going to the IAI this year and will bring studio quality audio and video equipment if anyone wants to discuss this or anything else in person. You going, Dr?

Boyd Baumgartner wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:55 pmI'm going to the IAI this year . . . . . You going, Dr?

Alas, no. Not in the cards this year. Should be a beautiful location and a good place to spend a week in the summer. Use your photography gear to good purpose!

Perhaps the issue at hand is that of the political correctness of agreeing to standards that are rather ridiculous in the first place. Maybe Mr. McRoberts shouldn't have stated that the JFI will agree to have it's authors adhere to some set of IRB standards or guidelines in the first place. Or, perhaps to only require such adherence when there is a reasonable expectation that someone's safety (physical, emotional, or psychological) was in danger of being compromised.

Of course, if I'm wrong, I suppose I should discard all my old JFIs and consider their research invalid due to the seriousness of these ethical violations!

George

George Reis wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:31 pm Perhaps the issue at hand is that of the political correctness of agreeing to standards that are rather ridiculous in the first place.

It's a good observation and begs the question 'who gets to determine what's ridiculous'? Obviously, regulations can outlive their usefulness. I believe that was the good Dr.'s point about them being laughable relative to the Tuskegee experiment. The flip side of that is, that they still exist and for some good reasons, one being that science as an enterprise is supposed to be iterative and self correcting and community protocols aid in that. The uBiome link I posted above, the authors contemplate what an IRB 2.0 would look like and the madness associated with 'My IRB Nightmare' shows the ridiculousness to which you are referring.

Boyd Baumgartner wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:55 pm

• The IAI wanted to file ethics charges against anyone who posted on the Cert Test thread

Wait... What??

rsc55 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:25 am

Boyd Baumgartner wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:55 pm

• The IAI wanted to file ethics charges against anyone who posted on the Cert Test thread

Wait... What??

Sounds like some members of the Cert. Board needs to go. So much for free speech.

rsc55 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:25 am

Boyd Baumgartner wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:55 pm

• The IAI wanted to file ethics charges against anyone who posted on the Cert Test thread

Wait... What??

Ditto. Where did this come from

Someone in the discipline who wishes to remain anonymous but with first hand knowledge. Take it for what you think it's worth. That thread pissed off a lot of people if my inbox is any indicator.

Since Carl filed an appeal, the response is forthcoming. If they take disciplinary action are they required to publish it like they did Ivan Futrell's censure?

Remember kids: You heard it on the internet so it must be true!

So much for the de-escalation, measured response, and opportunity for improvement I was hoping for.

Okay, the train is going off the tracks here. Before the trainwreck is complete, let's try to pull it back on.

Boyd Baumgartner wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:55 pmFingerprints wants to sit at the big kids' table of science, maybe those holding themselves out as leaders should quit wearing their napkins in their shirt like a bib.

To reverse the original position I took in stirring the pot, let me take a different tack.

To paraphrase in rough corollary the ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville and Joseph de Maistre, "In any democratic organization, the members get the government they deserve." In other words, if the members seriously study the candidates' philosophies and elect those who represent the majority beliefs and opinions among the members, then the organizational government itself is a reflection of a consensus of the membership. But if the members do not take their individual votes seriously and elect the prettiest or most popular or smoothest talking candidates, then they still get what they deserve.

In spite of how that sounds, I'm not opining on the relative fitness of the current leadership of the IAI. I presume the members have elected a governing body that is taking the organization in the direction the majority wants. So, to infer from Boyd as quoted above, "if fingerprints wants to sit at the big kids' table of science," then we have to eat from the dishes put in front of us, regardless of whether all individuals sitting at the table like the flavor of the food.

I guess that applies to certification as well as IRBs.

I'm not trying to stoke or quench the fire but wanted to mention that I have something (official) in writing from a former IAI president that says the

"IAI does not discipline its members for their postings on social media sites or in other publications."

--this was referring specifically to something that was on this chat board.

What a board, or member of a board, may want to do is going to be slightly different that what may actually happen. I wouldn't worry too much about the ethics/disciplinary action.