IRB Audits in Response to "Controversial" Questions
Case summary
In 2022, Rutgers University researchers Lee Jussim and Nate Honeycutt were subjected to three separate IRB audits involving previously approved survey studies about political attitudes and the climate in higher education. The reviews were initiated after the Rutgers IRB received complaints alleging that aspects of the surveys were biased, offensive, scientifically invalid, or intended to advance a political agenda. They were not told who submitted the complaints or which specific survey questions were considered objectionable.
What the IRB did
The Rutgers IRB appointed an outside investigator to conduct "for-cause" reviews of the three studies. Jussim and Honeycutt were required to provide research protocols, consent forms, recruitment materials, questionnaires, data and analysis materials, communications with participants and the IRB, and additional explanatory documents. They report producing more than 3,000 pages of documentation and participating in more than five hours of meetings. The audits lasted approximately six months, from February through July 2022.
Why this may be overreach
Even if the accusations of biased or offensive questions had merit, it is not within the remit of an IRB to "protect" human subjects from such questions.
Outcome
All three audits reportedly concluded that there were no regulatory findings and that each study had followed its approved protocol. Nevertheless, the IRB subsequently initiated an additional review of the design and methodology of one study and changed the projects’ classifications from exempt to expedited, thereby subjecting them to continuing annual review. IRB personnel did not explain why these additional measures were imposed.
References
Jussim, L. and Honeycutt, N. (2024). Weaponizing the IRB 2.0. https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/weaponizing-the-irb-20