tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525778292565554519.post6732750963168506199..comments2009-06-25T22:25:26.947-04:00Zachary M. Schraghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07101709506166167477noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525778292565554519.post-82941805724911571522009-06-25T22:25:26.947-04:002009-06-25T22:25:26.947-04:00Thank you for this comment. I am sorry you feel unable to identify yourself or the agency involved.<br /><br />ZMSZachary M. Schraghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07101709506166167477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525778292565554519.post-14899760544531132542009-06-24T18:00:55.538-04:002009-06-24T18:00:55.538-04:00I have a horror story, but this is from the IRB side of things. I work for an IRB. We recently received a study funded by a federal agency (not NIH). The proposal clearly does not fit the definition of research as defined in the Common Rule, but could be classified as journalism. We wrote the investigator and told her that she did not need IRB review for her project. Almost immediately we heard from the funding agency accusing us of not doing our job. We provided the agency with our policy on the review of journalism, oral history and ethnography. However the agency is insisting on review. Unfortunately, because of the way the exempt and expedited categories are set up, it does not qualify for either. So this journalism project now needs full Board review. Gaining written informed consent would be inane and, while we can grant waivers of consent, there is absolutely no reason this project needs IRB review. So this is an illustration of how one IRB is trying to combat mission-creep and was thwarted by a federal agency.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com