Participants may be especially unwilling to sign if the study involves questions about criminal behavior. In some studies, where the researchers do not need to identify the subjects, and medical histories are not at issue, the consent form is the only documentation of their identities. Scholars argue that formal documentation of informed consent is overkill in interviews, where participants can refuse to answer nosy questions or terminate the session altogether. Consider, for example, students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Journalism, who interviewed professional journalists as part of their theses on the history of the media in the United States. But not all interview subjects are as savvy, says Gary L. Chadwick, executive director of the review board at the University of Rochester.
People ought to know what they're getting involved in.
The National Bioethics Advisory Commission considered such arguments, and its draft report suggests a new, more flexible regulation about documenting informed consent in low-risk studies. Even with such a change, journalism-school projects have posed a particularly knotty problem for review boards. Ms. Blanchard and some journalism professors at other institutions argue that the First Amendment prohibits any I.R.B. review of such scholarship. Nevertheless, the North Carolina journalism school last year reached an understanding with the I.R.B. that such projects should be reviewed, with expedited review whenever possible. Student-written news stories are exempt.