Risk-benefit assessment in medical research--critical review and open questions
Authors:
Open Access
- 27 July 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Law, Probability and Risk
- Vol. 9 (3-4) , 151-177
Abstract
One of the central ethical requirements for medical research is that the risks to individual research participants should not be excessive. Despite widespread endorsement of this requirement, how it should be implemented remains controversial. This paper critically reviews the four existing approaches to evaluating the risks and benefits of medical research. It argues that the ‘net risks test’ is superior to ‘component analysis’, the ‘agreement principle’, and the ‘integrative approach’ and ends by highlighting several important questions that remain to be addressed.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Pruning the regulatory treeNature, 2009
- Minimal risk in pediatric researchThe Journal of Pediatrics, 2006
- Reasonable risks in clinical research: a critique and a proposal for the Integrative ApproachStatistics in Medicine, 2006
- Risks and Benefits of Phase 1 Oncology Trials, 1991 through 2002New England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?Nature Medicine, 2004
- Minimal Risk as an International Ethical Standard in ResearchThe Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 2004
- Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general publicQuality of Life Research, 2003
- Incidental Findings on Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging From 1000 Asymptomatic VolunteersJAMA, 1999
- Protecting Communities in Research: Philosophical and Pragmatic ChallengesCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 1999
- When is the Risk Minimal Enough for Children to be Research Subjects?1989