Yes / In this article, we draw attention to public-private dilemmas among psychologists that make sense of the debates around the replication crisis, citation practices and networking practices. We argue that the values of justice and caring map onto the public sphere and private sphere respectively and create the horns of a dilemma for academics. While bureaucratic justice is a publicly revered value of modernity in psychological research that underpins ethics, validity, reliability and equality of opportunity, ‘caring’ is a more subtle value of traditionalism that runs in parallel and is detected only by our psychological practices. In particular, we argue that it is detected by practices such as disputes between the replicated and their replicators in replication studies (understood as a dramatic counter reality) as to who is more ‘careless’ with procedure; citation (including the self-care of self-citation) as thanksgiving and incantation of powerful others in enchantment rituals, and the system of professional indebtedness that accrues in ‘kinship’ networks – where kinship is understood broadly as adoption into a research group and its network. The clashes between these values can lead to a sense of hypocrisy and irony in academic life, as incommensurate values split between private and public expression. From this position, we delve into Isaiah Berlin's work on incommensurate values to suggest that ethical pluralism, involving more public recognition of the equal but different ethical demands of these values can help overcome these everyday dilemmas in the public sphere.

As part of a preliminary literature review of research concerning the relationship between medical anthropology and bioethics committees, it became clear that Institutional Review Boards, a foundational component of research, had never been evaluated as a population with a characterizable identity. Some examples of contextual critiques and policy analysis with the goal of procedural efficiency were accessible (Gunsalus 2006; Fitzgerald 2009; Lederman 2006; Ozdemir 2009; Sontag 2012), but qualitative data on the local knowledge of IRBs as a population do not exist. A synthesis of theoretical orientations and methodological planning have been integrated to inform these novel research questions to learn more about the ethical decision-making process of an Institutional Review Board within a research university and hospital. Bioethical reasoning grounded in Western morals creates enough opportunity for cognitive dissonance because of the potential misapplication of ethics, but when decision-making authority is deemed objectively scientific, it can cause a power dynamic by being taken as self-evident. Considering these biomedical frameworks, research with human subjects is grounded in morality, making IRBs a relevant site of praxis for philosophical and scientific research. The overall purpose of this project is to identify the ethical values that define Institutional Review Boards as a population, evaluate the moral implications of biomedical governmentality in clinical research, and define common phenomenological understandings of moral praxis within positions of relative power.