Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Limits on risks for healthy volunteers in biomedical research

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Healthy volunteers in biomedical research often face significant risks in studies that offer them no medical benefits. The U.S. federal research regulations and laws adopted by other countries place no limits on the risks that these participants face. In this essay, I argue that there should be some limits on the risks for biomedical research involving healthy volunteers. Limits on risk are necessary to protect human participants, institutions, and the scientific community from harm. With the exception of self-experimentation, limits on research risks faced by healthy volunteers constitute a type of soft, impure paternalism because participants usually do not fully understand the risks they are taking. I consider some approaches to limiting research risks and propose that healthy volunteers in biomedical research should not be exposed to greater than a 1% chance of serious harm, such as death, permanent disability, or severe illness or injury. While this guideline would restrict research risks, the limits would not be so low that they would prevent investigators from conducting valuable research. They would, however, set a clear upper boundary for investigators and signal to the scientific community and the public that there are limits on the risks that healthy participants may face in research. This standard provides guidance for decisions made by oversight bodies, but it is not an absolute rule. Investigators can enroll healthy volunteers in studies involving a greater than 1% chance of serious harm if they show that the research addresses a compelling public health or social problem and that the risk of serious harm is only slightly more than 1%. The committee reviewing the research should use outside experts to assess these risks.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shamoo, Adil, and David Resnik. 2006. Strategies to minimize risks and exploitation in phase one trials on healthy subjects. American Journal of Bioethics 6(3): W1–W13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Resnik, David, and Greg Koski. 2011. A national registry for healthy volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 305: 1236–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goodyear, Michael. 2006. Learning from the TGN1412 trial. British Medical Journal 332: 677–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Steinbrook, Robert. 2002. Protecting research subjects—the crisis at Johns Hopkins. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 716–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Steinbrook, Robert. 2002. Improving protection for human subjects. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1425–1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lederer, Susan. 2008. Walter Reed and the yellow fever experiments. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, ed. Ezekiel Emanuel, Christine Grady, Robert Crouch, Rider Lie, Frank Miller, and David Wendler, 9–17. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. US Code of Federal Regulations. 2009. Protection of human subjects. 45 CFR 46. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html. Accessed Nov 30, 2011.

  8. US Code of Federal Regulations. 2010. Institutional review boards. 21 CFR 56. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=56. Accessed Nov 30, 2011.

  9. King, Nancy, and Larry Churchill. 2008. Assessing and comparing potential benefits and risks of harm. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, ed. Ezekiel Emanuel, Christine Grady, Robert Crouch, Rider Lie, Frank Miller, and David Wendler, 514–526. New York: Oxford University Press.

  10. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/ethics/2007_humans/contents.htm. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  11. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 2010. Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. 2nd ed. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  12. European Commission. 2011. National regulations on ethics in research in Hungary. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/hu_eng_lr.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  13. Indian Council on Medical Research. 2011. Ethical guidelines for biomedical research on human participants. http://icmr.nic.in/ethical_guidelines.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  14. Kuwaiti Institute for Medical Specialization. 2011. Ethical guidelines for biomedical research. http://www.kims.org.kw/Ethical%202.doc. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  15. Netherlands Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects. 2011. About reviews. http://www.ccmo-online.nl/main.asp?pid=10&sid=11. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  16. National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria. 2011. National code of health research ethics. http://www.nhrec.net/nhrec/NCHRE_10.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  17. South Africa, Department of Health. 2011. Ethics in health research: Principles, practices, and processes. http://www.doh.gov.za/nhrec/norms/ethics.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  18. United Kingdom, Department of Health. 2011. Governance arrangements for research ethics committees. Harmonised ed. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_126614.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  19. World Medical Association. 2008. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  20. Council for International Organizations of Medical Science. 2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2011.

  21. Nuremberg Code. 1947. Directives for human experimentation. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html. Accessed June 7, 2011.

  22. Miller, Frank, and Stephen Joffe. 2009. Limits to research risks. Journal of Medical Ethics 35(7): 445–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Annas, George. 1991. Mengele’s birthmark: The Nuremberg Code in United States courts. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 7: 17–45.

    Google Scholar 

  24. London, Alex. 2006. Reasonable risks in clinical research: A critique and a proposal for the integrative approach. Statistics in Medicine 25: 2869–2885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rid, Annette, and David Wendler. 2011. A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21(2): 141–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ross, Lanie Friedman. 2008. Children in medical research: Access versus protection. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Miller, Frank, and Christine Grady. 2001. The ethical challenge of infection-inducing challenge experiments. Clinical Infectious Diseases 33: 1028–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gostin, Larry. 2007. General justifications for public health regulation. Public Health 121: 829–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yarborough, Mark, and Richard Sharp. 2009. Public trust and research a decade later: What have we learned since Jesse Gelsinger’s death? Molecular Genetics and Metabolism 97(1): 4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dworkin, Gerald. 2011. Paternalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/paternalism/. Accessed June 13, 2011.

  31. Kant, Immanuel. 1964 [1785]. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Trans. Herbert Paton. New York: Harper and Rowe.

  32. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mill, John Stuart. 2003 [1869]. Utilitarianism and on liberty. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

  34. Miller, Frank, and Alan Wertheimer. 2007. Facing up to paternalism in research ethics. Hastings Center Report 37(3): 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Menikoff, Jeremy. 2006. What the doctor didn’t say. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Davis, John. 2003. Self-experimentation. Accountability in Research 10: 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nobel Foundation. 2005. Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine: Autobiography. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/marshall-autobio.html. Accessed June 13, 2011.

  38. U.S. Fire Administration. 2011. On-duty firefighter fatalities 1977–2009. http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/fatalities/statistics/history.shtm. Accessed June 18, 2011.

  39. U.S. Department of Labor. 2011. 2007 Fatal injury rates. http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2007h.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2011.

  40. Taliercio, J., S. Nurko, and E. Poggio. 2011. Living donor kidney transplantation: an update on evaluation and medical implications of donation. Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica 63(1): 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wendler, David, and Frank Miller. 2007. Assessing research risks systematically: The net risks test. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(8): 481–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Shah, Semma, Amy Whittle, Benjamin Wilfond, Gary Gensler, and David Wendler. 2004. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? Journal of the American Medical Association 291(4): 476–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bernstein, David, Mark Wanner, Larry Borish, Gary Liss, and The Immunotherapy Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, Immunology. 2004. Twelve-year survey of fatal reactions to allergen injections and skin testing: 1990–2001. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 113(6): 1129–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Akinpelu, David. 2010. Treadmill stress testing. Medscape reference. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1827089-overview. Accessed June 27, 2011.

  45. Bandolier. 2011. Harm from endoscopy or colonoscopy. http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/gi/endoharm.html. Accessed June 27, 2011.

  46. Mater Health Services. 2011. Broncoscopy. http://www.mater.org.au/Home/Services/Adult-Respiratory-Medicine/Bronchoscopy. Accessed June 27, 2011.

  47. Surgery.com. 2011. Cardiac catheterization: mortality and morbidity. http://www.surgery.com/procedure/cardiac-catheterization/morbidity-mortality. Accessed June 28, 2011.

  48. Center for Environmental Medicine, Asthma, and Lung Biology. n.d. About the center. http://www.med.unc.edu/cemalb/about-the-center. Accessed October 18, 2011.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article is the work product of an employee or group of employees of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, the statements, opinions, or conclusions contained therein do not necessarily represent the statements, opinions, or conclusions of NIEHS, NIH, or the United States government. I am grateful to Bill Schrader and Frank Miller for helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Box 12233, Mail Drop CU-03, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA

    David B. Resnik

Authors
  1. David B. Resnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Resnik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resnik, D.B. Limits on risks for healthy volunteers in biomedical research. Theor Med Bioeth 33, 137–149 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-011-9201-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-011-9201-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation