Research is the jewel in Cornell's crown: as said in its mission statement, the University is committed "to discover, preserve, and disseminate knowledge." The quality of the research produced contributes substantially to the University's prestige and allows us to attract the most accomplished and distinguished faculty from across the world. Just as with other facets of university life, students at all levels are involved, whether it be graduate students formulating experiment protocols or undergraduates conducting large data analysis in R. This is a potent reflection of the University's principles, as all are committed to participating in the pursuit of knowledge. Yet, an important inequality exists, particularly when it comes to the regulation of research at Cornell.

The Institutional Review Board, more colloquially known as the IRB, is the committee that protects the welfare of human subjects in scientific research and trials. Regrettably, the history of science is ripe with the abhorrent violations of human rights, necessitating such reviewers to validate trials. All protocols involving humans must be approved by the IRB before their implementation, ensuring the preservation of ethics and morality within the research process at Cornell. The existence of the IRB dates back to 1953, when the National Institutes of Health created a board for the review of human involvement in its clinical research projects. Ultimately, this policy was expanded to numerous other institutions in 1974, following the Tuskegee Incident, prompting the creation of Cornell's own IRB. Thus, the IRB is one of the University's most important mechanisms for the oversight of ethical science.

Yet, despite the involvement of undergraduates in Cornell's research initiatives, there is no representation of undergraduates in the systems that dictate whether research may be conducted or not. Strangely enough, this lack of student representation is not the case for other Cornell institutions and programs: Teaching Assistant programs, for example, involve undergraduates, which is paralleled through student participation on the Educational Policy Committee. Given the numerous other examples of student government at Cornell, one would expect that undergraduates are equally involved in Cornell's research regulatory process. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Compared to the one undergraduate and graduate student sitting on the Educational Policy Committee, none sit on the University's IRB.

Some may suggest that although undergraduates may be a backbone in terms of the more menial aspects of science, the intellectual heavy lifting is often done by the faculty; the latter earn precedence in deciding what counts as moral science, as undergraduates lack the pertinent qualifications to participate. Yet, even though inherently valid, this argument fails to understand the true purpose of systems such as the IRB. First, we must question whether intellectual ammunition should ultimately stand in for correctness; I would argue no. Simply being a good scientist does not preclude someone from unethical conduct -- hence the need for an IRB in the first place.

Second, it can also be interpreted that faculty better understand the research at hand than any undergraduate, allowing them to evaluate projects with a higher degree of nuance. However, this fails to recognize one the key tenets of the committee, that being the marked contrast in the beliefs of its members. Within the scientific community, the definitions of ethicality and morality fall onto a committee that should represent a range of opinions and ideas. The IRB delineates a clear, face neutral definition of "right," allowing for the particularities of different research proposals to be evaluated rationally. Such a sweeping mandate necessitates a diversity of roles and stakeholders in implementation, rather than a sole reliance on the top echelons of Cornell's research community. Currently, many members of the IRB are not faculty, but rather managers and administrators at Cornell.

Preserving this diversity of roles and positions within the IRB is essential, as it reintroduces a more human perspective into what may be a very research-oriented opinion. Those less familiar with the particularities of certain research proposals are often better suited at truly distancing themselves from the science, not allowing the bias of pursuing certain results to influence their perspective on whether or not a study should be conducted. Thus, when the opinion of a key stakeholder -- those attending an academic institution -- is missing, it should immediately be questioned. Students are deserving of their place on Cornell's IRB, not only as young researchers, but as members of the school's community.

Alongside the development of science, the development of the practice of science must also be innovated upon. It is in this light that Cornell has the opportunity to take an important step in the right direction, being among the first prominent research institutions to include students in the regulation of its publishing and research.

Ayman Abou-Alfa is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].