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

Franklin Miller
Columbia University
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 …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2005.014043
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,046
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Uncertainty in Clinical Research.Robert J. Levine - 1988 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 16 (3-4):174-182.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research.Wendler Annette Rid David - 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.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

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.


Added to PP index

Total views
45 ( #239,428 of 2,454,450 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #225,749 of 2,454,450 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes