Article info
Original research
Process of risk assessment by research ethics committees: foundations, shortcomings and open questions
- Correspondence to Pranab Rudra, Institute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Baden-Württemberg 89073, Germany; rudrapranab{at}gmail.com
Citation
Process of risk assessment by research ethics committees: foundations, shortcomings and open questions
Publication history
- Received May 24, 2019
- Revised November 20, 2019
- Accepted November 27, 2019
- First published January 10, 2020.
Online issue publication
April 29, 2021
Article Versions
- Previous version (10 January 2020).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk
- Collaborative risk assessment in secure and forensic mental health settings in the UK
- Intergenerational monitoring in clinical trials of germline gene editing
- Ambiguous articles in new EU Regulation may lead to exploitation of vulnerable research subjects
- Acceptable risks and burdens for children in research without direct benefit: a systematic analysis of the decisions made by the Dutch Central Committee
- Improving the Helsinki Declaration's guidance on research in incompetent subjects
- Grants and Contracts, JIM 61-2
- Can you afford to make an inappropriate high-volume switch?
- How do electronic risk assessment tools affect the communication and understanding of diagnostic uncertainty in the primary care consultation? A systematic review and thematic synthesis
- The views of public and clinician stakeholders on risk assessment tools for post-stroke dementia: a qualitative study