Ethics Submission: Civic Proximity Pilot Study

Why Should It Cost So Much To Do Something Normal?

Formal ethics submission for a pilot study testing proximity-weighted emergency response systems. Documents the bureaucratic friction preventing obviously beneficial research.

Research Methodology

Study Type

Ethical Review Protocol — Pre-registration and ethics submission for a community-based intervention study, following IRB/HREC requirements.

Design

Three-phase pilot study:

Observational baseline: Document current emergency response times

Intervention: Deploy proximity alert system in consenting community

Comparative analysis: Measure outcomes against baseline

Rigor Level

Protocol, not data. This is the ethics submission that enables data collection. The research itself follows RCT principles adapted for community intervention.

Study Design

Phase 1: Observational

Document current emergency response times (baseline)

Map existing community volunteer networks

Establish pre-intervention metrics

Duration: 3 months

Data: Time-to-response, outcome severity, resource utilization

Phase 2: Pilot Intervention

Deploy proximity alert system in willing community

Verified responders receive location-masked alerts

Measure response times, health outcomes, participant experience

Duration: 6 months

Sample: ~500 households, opt-in

Phase 3: Analysis

Compare intervention period against baseline

Identify implementation barriers and facilitators

Document lessons learned for scale-up

Primary endpoint: Time to first-responder contact

Secondary endpoints: Health outcomes, participant satisfaction, false positive rate

Ethical Considerations

| Domain | Protection | Implementation |
|--------|------------|----------------|
| Privacy | Location data for emergency use only | Pseudonymization, edge processing, no persistent tracking |
| Consent | Opt-in with training requirement | Informed consent + competency verification |
| Equity | Coverage across demographics | Stratified recruitment, accessibility analysis |
| Safety | Professional backup always available | Dual dispatch, never replace formal services |
| Withdrawal | Right to exit at any time | One-tap deactivation, no penalty |

The Bureaucratic Barrier

The Title's Meaning

"Why Should It Cost So Much To Do Something Normal?" reflects a documented phenomenon:

| What We're Testing | Ethical Risk Level | Bureaucratic Burden |
|-------------------|-------------------|---------------------|
| Can trained neighbors help faster? | Minimal (backup always available) | Full HREC review, 6-12 months |
| Existing programs (PulsePoint, GoodSAM) | Already operational | None (commercial) |

The same intervention deployed commercially requires no ethics review. Studied academically, it requires months of bureaucracy.

The Cost

Direct: Application fees, researcher time, consultant fees

Indirect: Delay in evidence generation, continued preventable harms

Systemic: Disincentive for beneficial research

Directory Structure

```
ethics_submission/
├── README.md # This file
├── manuscript/
│ └── paper.tex # Ethics submission (LaTeX)
├── data/
│ └── raw/ # (Empty - awaiting approval)
├── references/
│ └── bibliography.md # IRB literature, precedents
├── results/
│ └── figures/ # (Pending)
└── src/
└── templates/ # IRB forms, consent documents
```

Key References

Ethics Review Literature

Emanuel, E.J., Wendler, D. & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711.

Schrag, Z.M. (2010). Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Precedent Programs

Brooks, S.C. et al. (2016). PulsePoint AED alerts and bystander defibrillation. Circulation, 134(Suppl_2), A17411.

Smith, C.M. et al. (2020). GoodSAM smartphone app and bystander response. Resuscitation, 154, 89-96.

Related Studies

| This Study | Connects To | Link |
|------------|-------------|------|
| Research enabled | emergency_response | ../emergency_response |
| Alert system design | direct_personal_alerts | ../direct_personal_alerts |
| Mathematical model | mathematical_foundations | ../mathematical_foundations |
| Public framing | anchor_wellbeing | ../anchor_wellbeing |

Closes Escape Route

"We need more research before acting"

This submission documents that the barrier to research is not scientific uncertainty but bureaucratic friction. Programs achieving the same outcomes commercially face no such barriers. The escape route of "we need research first" is invalidated by the observation that research itself is blocked, while unresearched deployment proceeds.

Evidence Strength

| Claim | Evidence Level | Confidence |
|-------|----------------|------------|
| Proximity response is faster | Strong (PulsePoint/GoodSAM data) | High |
| Ethics review delays beneficial research | Moderate (documented delays) | Moderate |
| Bureaucratic friction is systematic | Observational | Moderate |
| Pilot study will generate useful data | Projected | N/A |

Status

Protocol: Complete

Ethics submission: Awaiting institutional review

IRB templates: Available in `src/templates/`

Timeline: 6-12 months expected for approval

Ethics Submission: Civic Proximity Pilot