Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?

  • Commentary
  • Published:

From Nature Medicine

View current issue Submit your manuscript

The question “When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?” is at the heart of disputes in the ethics of clinical research. Institutional review boards are often criticized for inconsistent decision-making, a problem that is compounded by a number of contemporary controversies, including the ethics of research involving placebo controls, developing countries, incapable adults and emergency rooms. If this pressing ethical question is to be addressed in a principled way, then a systematic approach to the ethics of risk in research is required. Component analysis provides such a systematic approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

References

  1. Shah, S., Whittle, A., Wilfond, B., Gensler, G. & Wendler, D. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 291, 476–482 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Emanuel, E.J. & Miller, F.G. N. Engl. J. Med. 345, 915–919 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Angell, M. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 847–849 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Karlawish, J.H. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 1389–1392 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Valenzuela, T.D. & Copass, M.K. N. Engl. J. Med. 345, 689–690 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Weijer, C. J. Law Med. Ethics 28, 344–361 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Institutional Review Boards: Report and Recommendations (DHEW Publication (OS) 78-0008, Washington, D.C., 1978).

  8. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (DHEW Publication (OS) 78-0012, Washington, D.C., 1978).

  9. U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants 69–95 (NBAC, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 2000).

  10. Emanuel, E.J., Wendler, D. & Grady, C. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 283, 2701–2711 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Miller, F.G. & Brody, H. Hastings Cent. Rep. 33, 19–28 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants 13 (NBAC, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 2000).

  13. Freedman, B. N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 141–145 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Freedman, B. IRB 9, 7–10 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Freedman, B., Fuks, A. & Weijer, C. Hastings Cent. Rep. 23, 13–19 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kopelman, L.M. J. Med. Philos. 25, 745–764 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller, P.B. & Weijer, C. IRB 22, 6–10 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Freedman, B. IRB 12, 31–34 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weijer, C. & Glass, K.C. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 382–383 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Weijer, C. J. Law Med. Ethics 30, 69–72 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Connor, E.M. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 331, 1173–1180 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lurie, P. & Wolfe, S.M. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 853–856 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Varmus, H. & Satcher, D. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 1003–1005 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Angell, M. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 847–849 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Crouch, R.A. & Arras, J.D. Hastings Cent. Rep. 28, 26–34 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Fed. Regist. 43, 53950–53956 (1978).

  27. Fost, N. & Robertson, J. IRB 2, 5–6 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ellis, G. Office for Protection from Research Risks 93–3 (1993).

  29. McRae, A.D. & Weijer, C. Crit. Care Med. 30, 1146–1151 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to C. Heilig at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for preparing Figure 1. This work was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Investigator Award and Operating Grant (C.W.) and a doctoral fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (P.B.M.). C.W. is a Visiting Scholar at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge and Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge, UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics, Dalhousie University, 5849 University Avenue, Halifax, B3H 4H7, Nova Scotia, Canada

    Charles Weijer & Paul B Miller

Authors
  1. Charles Weijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul B Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weijer, C., Miller, P. When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?. Nat Med 10, 570–573 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0604-570

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0604-570

  • Springer Nature America, Inc.

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation