rss
J Med Ethics 2005;31:35-38 doi:10.1136/jme.2004.010470
  • Research ethics

Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk

  1. D B Resnik
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr D B Resnik
 National Institute of Environmental Health Science, National Institute of Health, Box 12233, NH06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; resnikdniehs.nih.gov
  • Received 1 September 2004
  • Accepted 6 September 2004

Abstract

The phrase “minimal risk,” as defined in the United States’ federal research regulations, is ambiguous and poorly defined. This article argues that most of the ambiguity that one finds in the phrase stems from the “daily life risks” standard in the definition of minimal risk. In this article, the author argues that the daily life risks standard should be dropped and that “minimal risk” should be defined as simply “the probability and magnitude of the harm or discomfort anticipated in research are not greater than those encountered during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests”.

Footnotes

  • Competing interest: I have no competing interests to declare.

  • The ideas and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s personal views and do not represent the views of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institute of Health, or the US government.

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.