Article Text
Research ethics
Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk
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”.
- IRB, institutional review board
- risk
- research
- minimal risk
- definition
- ambiguity
- federal regulations
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Is there an objective way to compare research risks?
- Drug development for children: how adequate is the current European ethical guidance?
- Streamlining the Clinical Research Enterprise
- Developing capacity to protect human research subjects in a post-conflict, resource-constrained setting: procedures and prospects
- Process of risk assessment by research ethics committees: foundations, shortcomings and open questions
- Reconsidering ‘minimal risk’ to expand the repertoire of trials with waiver of informed consent for research
- Implications of the concept of minimal risk in research on informed choice in clinical practice
- Variations in institutional review board processes and consent requirements for trauma research: an EAST multicenter survey
- Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial
- Clinical Research From Proposal to Implementation