Announcement of a Conference on
CENSORSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS
April 6-7, 2006 at Northwestern University School of Law
This conference will explore the threat to First Amendment
freedoms and to academic freedom from Institutional Review
Boards ("IRBs"). IRBs are established by universities,
under federal regulations, for prior review of research.
Before a professor or student can do research on human
subjects, he must submit a research proposal to an IRB for
its approval. Although IRBs rarely deny permission
outright, they require modification of about 80 percent of
submitted proposals. Even when research is "exempt," IRBs
usually require it to be registered. Indeed, IRBs keep
records of approved, disapproved, and registered research
for examination by federal officials.
Of course, it may seem only reasonable that a researcher
should get permission before doing research on human
subjects, but IRBs raise important First Amendment
questions. In particular, there is reason to fear that in
establishing a system of getting prior permission, the
regulations on IRBs create a system of licensing speech and
the press.
The primary federal regulations on IRBs
collectively known as the "Common Rule" - define "research"
as a "systematic investigation" designed to produce
"generalizable knowledge," which is understood to be
knowledge of the sort published by researchers (45 CFR Part
46). Moreover, the regulations impose the system of
administrative licensing on much research that consists
solely of reading, talking, asking questions, and printing
and distributing surveys. Under these regulations, IRBs
interfere with much academic inquiry and expression, and
they have had the effect of almost shutting down some
fields of study. In short, the regulations on IRBs deserve
attention, for they appear to establish a sweeping system
of prior administrative censorship that bears a remarkable
resemblance to the licensing of the press that the First
Amendment most centrally forbade.
PARTICIPANTS:
Participants include: Elmer Abbo (Chicago), Dale Carpenter
(Minnesota), Robert Charrow (Greenberg, Taurig; D.C.),
Fredric Coe (Chicago), Harold Edgar (Columbia), Richard
Epstein (Chicago), Joel Frader (Northwestern), Kate
Gottfried (Tufts), Melvin Guyer (Michigan), Philip
Hamburger (Columbia), David Hyman (Illinois), Jack Katz
(UCLA), Renee Lerner (George Washington), James Lindgren
(Northwestern), William Marshall (Duke), Jonathan Moss
(Chicago), John Mueller (Calgary), Richard Shweder
(Chicago), James Weinstein (Arizona State), Roy Weiss
(Chicago), and Todd Zywicki (George Mason).
PAPERS:
The conference papers will be published by the Northwestern
University Law Review, and the conference is supported by
Northwestern University School of Law, the John M. Olin
Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago,
and the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the
University of Chicago.
PROGRAM:
For the program, see: http://irbinfo.blogspot.com/
REGISTRATION/FURTHER INFORMATION:
Attendance is free, but please register ahead of time
with:
CONTACT: Marjorie Holme
Email: MAILTO:[email protected]
For other information, please contact:
CONTACT: Philip Hamburger
Email: MAILTO:[email protected]
I just revently came across the news of your conference which interests me. As a sociologist, I have been conducting ethnographic research on REBs (the Canadian equivalent of IRBs) and would welcome receiving any papers that describe or document the interaction between IRBs and researchers. (The details of my interest can be found in my volume, "Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers" (U. of Toronto Press, 2002).
Many thanks, Will. C. van den Hoonaard, Department of Sociology, U. of New Brunswick, Fredericton, POB 4400, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3 Canada
Posted by: Will C. van den Hoonaard | 04 April 2006 at 09:30 AM