Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test

Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (8):481-486 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Dual-track assessment directs research ethics committees to assess the risks of research interventions based on the unclear distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions. The net risks test, in contrast, relies on the clinically familiar method of assessing the risks and benefits of interventions in comparison to the available alternatives and also focuses attention of the RECs on the central challenge of protecting research participants.Research guidelines around the world recognise that clinical research is ethical only when the risks to participants are reasonable.1 Appropriate implementation of this requirement is vital to protecting research participants and allowing research to proceed when it poses acceptable risks. Unfortunately, as the US National Bioethics Advisory Commission notes: “current regulations do not further elaborate how risks and potential benefits are to be assessed, and little additional guidance is available to IRBs.”1The NBAC, as well as numerous commentators, recommend that research ethics committees , ethics review committees and institutional review boards should adopt what may be called dual-track risk assessment.2–5 Yet, dual-track assessment unnecessarily divides research interventions into two different categories before assessing their risks and relies on the unclear distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions. As a result, dual-track assessment provides RECs with confusing guidance and has the potential to block valuable research that poses acceptable risks. This paper describes one alternative, the net risks test, and argues that this approach offers a better method for assessing research risks, one that puts RECs in a position to protect participants without blocking appropriate research studies.BACKGROUNDClinical research exposes participants to interventions and procedures to gather systematic data that may be used to improve overall health and well-being. To ensure that research is ethical, RECs must ensure that the risks and burdens to participants are not excessive and that …

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,649

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Risk and Value.John T. Sanders - 1996 - A.S.V.I. News 1996 (Spring):4-5.
Group Risks, Risks to Groups, and Group Engagement in Genetics Research.Daniel M. Hausman - 2007 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (4):351-369.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-13

Downloads
51 (#228,624)

6 months
4 (#172,750)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Franklin Miller
Columbia University

Citations of this work

A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research.Annette Rid & David Wendler - 2011 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (2):141-179.
Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research.David B. Resnik - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (2):137-149.
Challenge Trials: What Are the Ethical Problems?Daniel M. Hausman - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (1):137-145.

View all 22 citations / Add more citations