The act of a psychologist asking questions should be protected by academic freedom — just as it would be if the questioner were a journalist (Schneider). But that is not how the Rutgers IRB sees it. As recounted by Lee and his student, Nate Honeycutt in “Weaponizing the IRB 2.0,” the Rutgers IRB insisted on reviewing Lee’s questionnaires. Then it got much worse. In response to anonymous complaints that the questions in the surveys (never specified) were “offensive,” the IRB conducted —multiple — lengthy audits of Lee’s lab. This was both time consuming and costly. It also highlights the potential for IRB processes to be hijacked by bad actors who may be acting to further their own political or ideological biases.