I feel like the OP is overthinking it. The simple answer is you submit an approval for an IRB waiver, and if your IRB isn't staffed with nitwits, they usually grant it. (i.e. most retrospective studies including w/ chart review, or "minimal harm" studies i.e. w/ asking questions etc, w/o any drugs/surgeries/blood draws etc, or any risk of disseminating private health information usually get the waiver)
And, conversely, when people _do_ weaponize institutional review requirements to police research, you have a much more pressing and bigger problem: the existence of people who would be happy to find any mechanism to police research.
I would argue that the weaponization is an intrinsic part of the nature of review boards. Not just for ethics, but accross pretty much all categories.
It's been pretty universal in my experience that people will use the power given to them to push their agenda, which is generally only somewhat aligned with the nameplate mission.
E.g. a vegan or vegetarian on an ERB has an obvious, if soft, conflict of interests that will come out in how they treat requests involving animals, or whose results might lead to future testing on animals.
But...people and people-communications make it work, i.e "Technical problems are easy, people are hard." This is a truism of life. I think this comment in the marca linux kernel brouhaha thread is relevant.
(and most IRB squabbles that involve non-invasion/low risk research never really get as bad as that, at least in my experience, knock on wood)
Do you have experiences with IRBs? IME, most structures and people want to get along and at worst, gain favors and reduce enemies. People are short-sighted sociopaths, usually.
a neurosurgeon I worked with could get his waiver approved in a day usually. But he made friends w/ all the IRB members and had a significant budget for donuts donations.
