{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02411873840445269, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Intention, perception and trust: comment on "Challenges of informed consent during a political crisis" by Mishra and Gaitonde.

This note explores the relevance of the ethics requirement of having a "study-independent observer/impartial witness" signing off on the informed consent procedure when the community under study is unwilling to do so. It shows how the community's distrust of the researcher as an agent of a malevolent government (expressed in a refusal to sign the consent form) is reflected in the researcher's objective links to government through education and advanced academic research. Arguing that research ethics rather than blindly following rules, means thinking about context, it reverses the question of relevance of the ethics protocol, to questioning the relevance of the research to the community. It suggests that thinking this through will clarify the position of the researcher and contribute to research ethics. Keywords: informed consent, impartial witness, public health research ethics, Citizenship Amendment Act, National Register of Citizens.