Help Me STFU

[Dr_Badger]

I'm a tenured faculty member with experience conducting research with vulnerable populations. Junior Colleague in another department is planning to conduct interviews with similarly sensitive topics/vulnerable populations for a book project, and I gathered from talking to JC that IRB review is not on JC's list of priorities. 

I tried talking with JC and offered to share my own experiences with the IRB process, but JC was not enthused. JC seems confident that their research is exempt. JC is in a department with colleagues who are already picking on them. If I once again bring up IRB with JC, my comments may have a piling on effect, resulting in JC feeling even more nitpicked. Please help me STFU and let JC find their own way. 

[aside]

You can lead a horse to water, but ...

I would ask JC why they were confident their research is exempt.  I assume JC is on the tenure track.  While it is understandable you don't want to seem to be piling on, you would not doing them any favors by not telling them what they need to hear (if you feel strongly you know what they need to hear).  This would not be the same as picking on them.  Not engaging in the IRB process and then later finding out it was necessary to do so could result in a major delay for their book project. 

[drbrt]

An exempt review still required an application. JC will find out soon enough.

[hungry_ghost]

I will share my experience dealing with my hard-headed and stubborn elderly parent and my similarly hard-headed and stubborn teenager: often, when I make a suggestion or give advice, the first response I hear is "no I don't need to do that" or some other rejection of my comment. But despite this ostensibly unpromising first reaction, often my suggestions seem to percolate or ferment or bake or something, since later on, the recipient may inform me (as though it was their own idea) "I am doing [exactly what you suggested]!" ... but with no reference to me.

So, STFU, and hopefully JC (Jeezus C?! oh wait no, Junior Colleague) will think a bit, perhaps quietly ask around or look into IRB, and then do the right thing, with or without telling you about it.

However, if you do not STFU and keep nagging (to borrow teenager's word for making the same suggestion twice in a year), JC may well become impervious to your advice and (out of spite? defiance? or who knows what ...) not do the right thing.

All this to say, some people--indeed, quite a lot of people--respond to new ideas (or in this case, a pile of new work) with hesitance or rejection, but the initial negative response softens after they take time to think alone. Nagging only hardens people's hearts. So...

STFU!!

[BlueberryBagel]

You can lead a horse to water, but ...

I would ask JC why they were confident their research is exempt.  I assume JC is on the tenure track.  While it is understandable you don't want to seem to be piling on, you would not doing them any favors by not telling them what they need to hear (if you feel strongly you know what they need to hear).  This would not be the same as picking on them.  Not engaging in the IRB process and then later finding out it was necessary to do so could result in a major delay for their book project.

I've had to do IRB for vulnerable populations before (children), and it is an intensive process. I concur with the suggestion that if it comes up again, asking JC why they think they are exempt is a good idea. It might even trigger them to be a bit more reflective later on. Drbrt's point that even exemptions require review is a good one, too.

To my mind, the bigger problem beyond slowing the book issue is that IRB compliance is tied to an institution's ability to receive and distribute federal financial aid - and can trigger research misconduct investigations. My place has had some research misconduct cases involving in one case a total lack of seeking IRB oversight. We can't survive without that federal money, so people need to be careful. But even if financial aid is never in question, it would be seriously injurious to JC to end up being investigated for research misconduct. Who would set themselves up for that?

Another point: Every time I have submitted an IRB application - for three different projects - I emailed the contact person for the Human Subjects Committee office with a brief outline of the project and my proposed methods. She seeks advice from the committee chair, which I take, and I have never had to do any serious revisions as a result. It doesn't have to be an onerous process, and following the rules is so much easier than cleaning up the mess.

But, really, if JC is convinced they don't need IRB oversight, they will have to deal with the consequences. You're not picking on the person if it comes up again, truly, but it's up to them.

[ciao_yall]

Imagine your future self doing the happy dance.

[mozman]

JF can not make the decision that research is exempt. They need to submit it and let the committee come to that conclusion. If it's  vulnerable population, it likely it won't be exempt.

JF is going to get themselves censured or fired. You've told them, it's in their court now. Some people you just can't help.

[Antiphon1]

Gotta let adults make their own decisions.  If JC is determined to forgo an IRB process, you have no control over the decision.  You've given good advice and clear professional direction.  This one is out of your hands.  Schadenfreude may be your guilty or not so guilty pleasure.

[science.expat]

I wonder if there's a need for some CYA here. Maybe in the form of an email to JC reiterating your advice and offering to help? You wouldn't want them to later claim that your verbal advice was that IRB wasn't required.

[miss jane marple]

To my mind, the bigger problem beyond slowing the book issue is that IRB compliance is tied to an institution's ability to receive and distribute federal financial aid - and can trigger research misconduct investigations. My place has had some research misconduct cases involving in one case a total lack of seeking IRB oversight. We can't survive without that federal money, so people need to be careful. But even if financial aid is never in question, it would be seriously injurious to JC to end up being investigated for research misconduct. Who would set themselves up for that?

I've been a member of the counterpart of an IRB for several years. In that time, there has been a small minority of PIs who only see their own little bubble. They never seem to realize that if they don't follow the law as set out by the Federal government -- yes, the same Federal government that is funding their research -- it doesn't just affect them, but the entire organization. Same as if they fail to follow the guidelines of an international facility accrediting agency. It's not just their lab on the line, it's the ability of the entire university to conduct a vital type of research.

I concur with the CYA advice. You don't want any hint that you agreed with the JC's poor judgement.

Asking JC what part of the requirements explain how their project is exempt is a good idea; be prepared for a non-answer ("It's obvious!")

[Conjugate]

To my mind, the bigger problem beyond slowing the book issue is that IRB compliance is tied to an institution's ability to receive and distribute federal financial aid - and can trigger research misconduct investigations. My place has had some research misconduct cases involving in one case a total lack of seeking IRB oversight. We can't survive without that federal money, so people need to be careful. But even if financial aid is never in question, it would be seriously injurious to JC to end up being investigated for research misconduct. Who would set themselves up for that?

I've been a member of the counterpart of an IRB for several years. In that time, there has been a small minority of PIs who only see their own little bubble. They never seem to realize that if they don't follow the law as set out by the Federal government -- yes, the same Federal government that is funding their research -- it doesn't just affect them, but the entire organization. Same as if they fail to follow the guidelines of an international facility accrediting agency. It's not just their lab on the line, it's the ability of the entire university to conduct a vital type of research.

I concur with the CYA advice. You don't want any hint that you agreed with the JC's poor judgement.

Asking JC what part of the requirements explain how their project is exempt is a good idea; be prepared for a non-answer ("It's obvious!")

Perhaps frame it (in your email) as a question: "How do you get your study to be exempt? I'd love to be able to do that. Any tips?" Something like that will make it feel less like a criticism and more like an opportunity to be helpful, so as to elicit a response from JC.

Note: I am not in a field where we need IRB permission most of the time, so take this with a grain of salt.