As nuts as IRBs can be, their purpose is not to protect people from research findings but from research (mis)conduct. They are to protect the human subjects.
Misconduct of gain-of-function research (i.e. leaking a plague) might harm people. So might research misconduct for nuclear weapons (blowing people up, irradiating a water supply) and world-changing AI (grey goo / insert your favorite scenario). The most you can say is that IRBs are for protecting human subjects selected for the research from harm, and the above research types don’t select any human subjects (even though they implicitly might affect any nearby civilians and possibly the whole world). I would call that “technically correct: the best kind of correct”.
As nuts as IRBs can be, their purpose is not to protect people from research findings but from research (mis)conduct. They are to protect the human subjects.
Misconduct of gain-of-function research (i.e. leaking a plague) might harm people. So might research misconduct for nuclear weapons (blowing people up, irradiating a water supply) and world-changing AI (grey goo / insert your favorite scenario). The most you can say is that IRBs are for protecting human subjects selected for the research from harm, and the above research types don’t select any human subjects (even though they implicitly might affect any nearby civilians and possibly the whole world). I would call that “technically correct: the best kind of correct”.