This article asks how international secretariats can sometimes expand their authority in areas that relate neither to their mandate, nor to their sphere of expert authority. Existing explanations of mission creep assume that IOs act... more
This article asks how international secretariats can sometimes expand their authority in areas that relate neither to their mandate, nor to their sphere of expert authority. Existing explanations of mission creep assume that IOs act autonomously and expand in those areas which connect with their mandates, sense of organizational mission and sphere of expert authority. The claim, here, is that entrepreneurial bureaucrats can succeed in the absence of policy deadlock amongst states-in creating creep into unexpected issue domains through the mobilization of external expert knowledge. The article examines this dynamic in the domain of bioethical standards. It shows that UNESCO acted as a first mover in the field, despite having no relevant expertise, and bioethics being more closely connected to the mandate of other organizations. But bureaucratic entrepreneurs successfully mobilized external experts and made them part of the organization. This allowed them to prevent the politicization of debates in a potentially controversial issue domain, endow their organization with the capacity to act, and gave epistemic authority to their actions. In pointing to the strategic uses of expertise, the findings challenge the commonly held view that expert knowledge acts as a means of solving problems and rationalizing governance.
Our system of research self-regulation, designed to provide internal checks and balances for those who participate in research involving human subjects, is under considerable stress. Much of this crisis has been caused by what we call... more
Our system of research self-regulation, designed to provide internal checks and balances for those who participate in research involving human subjects, is under considerable stress. Much of this crisis has been caused by what we call mission creep, in which the workload of IRBs has expanded beyond their ability to handle effectively. Mission creep is caused by rewarding wrong behaviors, such as focusing more on procedures and documentation than difficult ethical questions; unclear definitions, which lead to unclear responsibilities; efforts to comply with unwieldy federal requirements even when research is not federally funded; exaggerated precautions to protect against program shutdowns; and efforts to protect against lawsuits. We recommend collecting data. We also call for refinements to our regulatory system that will provide a set of regulations designed for non-biomedical research. This will enable IRBs to direct attention to the areas of greatest risk while intentionally scal...
