Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?

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, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

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

Authors

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

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing