When "Minimal Risk" Research Yields Clinically-Significant Data, Maybe the Risks Aren't So Minimal
American Journal of Bioethics 4 (2):32-36 (2004)
| Abstract | Surveys and routine clinical procedures applied in research protocols are typically considered only minimally risky to participants. The apparent benign nature of "minimal risk" tasks increases the chance that investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) will overlook the probability that clinical tools will identify signs, symptoms, or definitive test results that are clinically-relevant to subjects' welfare. "Minimal risk" procedures may also pose a particular hazard to participants in clinical research by increasing the therapeutic misconception because the tasks mimic clinical care and are often conducted in clinical settings. Investigators should anticipate which measures could yield clinically-important findings and should describe explicit plans for data monitoring, disclosure, and follow-up. Protocols that include reliable and valid clinical measures should prompt a more detailed risk assessment by the IRB, even when the tasks meet the regulatory criteria for minimal physical, psychological, or emotional risk | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesCarson Strong (2011). Minimal Risk in Research Involving Pregnant Women and Fetuses. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):529-538.
George Howard (2010). Statistical Power, the Belmont Report, and the Ethics of Clinical Trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):675-691.
Sara Vollmer & George Howard (2010). Statistical Power, the Belmont Report, and the Ethics of Clinical Trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):675-691.
Jonathan Kimmelman (2004). Valuing Risk: The Ethical Review of Clinical Trial Safety. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):369-393.
Lisa DeMarni Cromer, Jennifer J. Freyd, Angela K. Binder, Anne P. DePrince & Kathryn Becker-Blease (2006). What's the Risk in Asking? Participant Reaction to Trauma History Questions Compared with Reaction to Other Personal Questions. Ethics and Behavior 16 (4):347 – 362.
Jeremy Snyder, Cari L. Miller & Glenda Gray (2011). Relative Versus Absolute Standards for Everyday Risk in Adolescent HIV Prevention Trials: Expanding the Debate. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):5 - 13.
Diane K. Wagener, Amy K. Sporer, Mary Simmerling, Jennifer L. Flome, Christina An & Susan J. Curry (2004). Human Participants Challenges in Youth-Focused Research: Perspectives and Practices of IRB Administrators. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):335 – 349.
David Wendler (2005). Protecting Subjects Who Cannot Give Consent: Toward a Better Standard for "Minimal" Risks. Hastings Center Report 35 (5):37-43.
Lee Black & Kelly A. McClellan (2011). Familial Communication of Research Results: A Need to Know? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (4):605-613.
Michael Owen (2006). Conflict and Convergence: The Ethics Review of Action Research. Journal of Academic Ethics 4 (1-4).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-14Total downloads2 ( #232,628 of 549,196 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,196 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
