Editing 1594: Human Subjects

{{comic
| number    = 1594
| date      = October 23, 2015
| title     = Human Subjects
| image     = human_subjects.png
| titletext = After meeting with a few of the subjects, the IRB actually recommended that you stop stressing out so much about safety guidelines.
}}

==Explanation==
This strip plays on certain experiments involving {{w|Human subject research|human subjects}}. [[Ponytail]] is questioning the reliability of [[Megan]]'s experimental results, given that her human subjects appear to be extremely unusual and highly sociopathic. 

In the first panel, she mentions that several {{w|Treatment and control groups|control group}} members – that is, ordinary people not subject to any experimental conditions – had been arrested for arson. This is "troubling", as the control group would not be expected to have such a high rate of incidence, while if the trend had occurred in the experimental group the drug could be identified as the cause of the arson, due to unexpected {{w|side effect}}s. The implication is that her subjects are not representative of the general population, but appear to have been selected from some aberrant subpopulation, such as a prison or mental institution. Or she could have recruited them through an announcement only sociopaths{{Citation needed|reason=Is an arsonist defined as a sociopath?}} could find interesting. [[790|However, this can be because of Cueball sneaking into the experiment and giving LSD to the control group.]]

The second panel alludes to the {{w|prisoner's dilemma}}, in which two subjects must independently decide whether to "collaborate" or "defect" – the latter giving them a personal reward at the expense of punishing the other subject. The rewards tier are selected so that best outcome is if both subject "collaborate"... but how you can be sure that other subject won't "defect"? If the subjects are defecting without being offered rewards, they must be sociopaths.{{Citation needed|reason=Is a masochist the same as a sociopath?}}

The last panel mentions the {{w|Milgram experiment}}, in which subjects are encouraged by disguised experimenters to provide shocks to unseen human subjects. In this case, however, electric shocks had no role in the experiment, and the subjects must have smuggled the necessary equipment in, for the express purpose of hurting people unknown to them – truly sociopathic behaviour.{{Citation needed|reason=Is there an agreed upon definition of 'truly sociopathic behaviour', and is this it?}}

The title text refers to safety procedures normally required by {{w|institutional review board}}s, which are centralised groups within universities that ensure that experiments are ethical and safe. The joke is that for an IRB to recommend dispensing with safety procedures, the human subjects must really, ''really'' deserve bad treatment. They could also worry that explaining safety rules to these subject may give them even uglier ideas.

There is no explanation given as to why one researcher is running experiments across the diverse disciplines of pharmaceuticals, psychology and cosmetics.

==Transcript==
[Ponytail and Megan sit at a desk.]

Ponytail: We're concerned that some of your results may be tainted by the fact that your human subjects are ''awful''.

Megan: What do you mean?


[Ponytail picks up a sheet of paper.]

Ponytail: Several participants in your drug trial were arrested for arson.

Megan: Side effects can be unpredictable.

Ponytail: They were in the control group.


Ponytail: In your prisoner's dilemma study, 80% of the participants chose to betray their partners ''before'' the experimenter had a chance to tell them about the reward.

Megan (off-panel): Definitely troubling.


[Ponytail shows Megan another sheet of paper.]

Ponytail: In one experiment, your subjects repeatedly gave electric shocks to a stranger in another room.

Megan: That's a famous psychological-

Ponytail: This was a study of moisturizing creams!

Megan: Yes, we're not sure how they snuck in all that equipment.

{{comic discussion}}