We have a weird situation where the rules for experimentation in academia and medicine are much more restrictive than everywhere else. So restrictive that even a very simple study where you do everything you normally do but also record whether two diagnostics agreed with each other can be bureaucratically impractical to run.
The first sentence is almost true,* but the second sentence if false. The first sentence is the relevant point for this post, so maybe all I have to say is nitpicking, but I’m going to say it. Scott’s experience is not representative. There are many aspects that caused it to be held to a higher standard. Your use of the word “even” implies that it was held to a lower standard, and thus is a representative, even a conservative estimate. While it is true that such a study should be held to a lower standard, it was in fact held to a standard much higher than usual in academia. Or, rather, it was probably not held to a standard, but simply sabotaged. Indeed, partly it was the very nature of the project, attacking existing tools that showed that he was “not a team player” and probably contributed to his treatment.
IRBs have arbitrary power, not high standards. At research universities, research is the principal revenue center and thus IRBs allow research to occur. Since academics do publish human subjects research and we know that IRBs often have lower standards than Scott’s hospital. The hospital was not a research hospital and thus the IRB was a vestigial organ without much pressure to actually function. Moreover, Scott did not have a research grant, so his project was a pure cost center.
*The standards in practice are, on average, very high, but the first sentence is wrong to claim that academia has rules. Sometimes academics are acclaimed for attempting murder. If they actually had rules, low or high, they would require an IRB for joining a gang.
Edit: inserted disclaimer as second sentence.
Edit2: Also, I meant to object to the word “bureaucratically.” To some people this implies consistency, which is exactly what I was trying to rebut in this comment. But to others it means plausible deniability, which is what I am claiming.
I’m not making that argument, but I do think that it’s easy to produce examples. For example, that was the problem with the Tuskegee experiment. The original incarnation was harmless, merely failing to provide expensive treatment that wouldn’t have been provided by default, only a problem in Schrödinger’s ethics. But later the investigators interfered with several other groups (eg, the WWII military) who wanted to provide treatment.