Responses to Commentaries on “Ethics as if Your Life Depended on It”
Joshua M Pearce · 2026
Read Responses to Commentaries on “Ethics as if Your Life Depended on It” by Joshua M Pearce (2026) in the Tower of Babel, a free online library of public-domain works preserved in clean, searchable text. No sign-up. The full text is served as a plain-text file at a predictable URL, where text is present: https://antarctic-labs.com/tower-of-babel/PMC13554360.txt.
Description
Pearce replied in 2026 to two commentaries on his article arguing that research ethics oversight should be reshaped around patient choice. Dr Robert Steel raised five reservations about democratising oversight, while Dr Min-Fu Tsan defended current review boards on four grounds.
He argues his framework keeps expert safety boards while letting patients weigh their own risks. Against Tsan, he cites data showing central review approval taking a median of 216 days in one large study. He rejects the claim that a single-board mandate solved delays, noting it covers only some US studies. He also calls the therapeutic misconception charge misapplied, since his framework treats trials as research with uncertain benefit. Pearce concedes sponsors shape protocols, but says review boards still gate consent and design changes.
Catalog record
| CREATOR | Joshua M Pearce |
|---|---|
| YEAR | 2026 |
| COLLECTION | PAPERS |
| FORMAT | TXT |
| FILE SIZE | 21 KB |
| LICENSE | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
| RIGHTS | CC BY |
| SOURCE | Europe PMC |