Literature DB >> 19567696

Limits to research risks.

F G Miller1, S Joffe.   

Abstract

Risk-benefit assessment is a routine requirement for research ethics committees that review and oversee biomedical research with human subjects. Nevertheless, it remains unclear how to weigh and balance risks to research participants against the social benefits that flow from generating biomedical knowledge. In this article, we address the question of whether there are any reasonable criteria for defining the limit of permissible risks to individuals who provide informed consent for research participation. We argue against any a priori limit to permissible research risks. However, attention to the uncertainty of potential social benefit that can be derived from any particular study warrants caution in exposing prospective research participants to a substantial likelihood of serious harm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19567696     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.026062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  14 in total

1.  Deliberate Microbial Infection Research Reveals Limitations to Current Safety Protections of Healthy Human Subjects.

Authors:  David L Evers; Carol B Fowler; Jeffrey T Mason; Rebecca K Mimnall
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-08-24       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Ethical Criteria for Human Challenge Studies in Infectious Diseases.

Authors:  Ben Bambery; Michael Selgelid; Charles Weijer; Julian Savulescu; Andrew J Pollard
Journal:  Public Health Ethics       Date:  2015-09-27       Impact factor: 1.940

3.  Setting risk thresholds in biomedical research: lessons from the debate about minimal risk.

Authors:  Annette Rid
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2014 Mar-Jun

4.  Limits on risks for healthy volunteers in biomedical research.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2012-04

5.  Minimal or reasonable? Considering the ethical threshold for research risks to nonconsenting bystanders and implications for nonconsenting participants.

Authors:  Holly Fernandez Lynch
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 1.898

6.  Recommendations for nanomedicine human subjects research oversight: an evolutionary approach for an emerging field.

Authors:  Leili Fatehi; Susan M Wolf; Jeffrey McCullough; Ralph Hall; Frances Lawrenz; Jeffrey P Kahn; Cortney Jones; Stephen A Campbell; Rebecca S Dresser; Arthur G Erdman; Christy L Haynes; Robert A Hoerr; Linda F Hogle; Moira A Keane; George Khushf; Nancy M P King; Efrosini Kokkoli; Gary Marchant; Andrew D Maynard; Martin Philbert; Gurumurthy Ramachandran; Ronald A Siegel; Samuel Wickline
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  The Role of Intuition in Risk/Benefit Decision-Making in Human Subjects Research.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 2.622

8.  Towards Equity in Health: Researchers Take Stock.

Authors:  Annette Rid; Michael A Johansson; Gabriel Leung; Hannah Valantine; Esteban G Burchard; Sam S Oh; Cathy Zimmerman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 9.  Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy.

Authors:  Euzebiusz Jamrozik; Michael J Selgelid
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Challenging research on human subjects: justice and uncompensated harms.

Authors:  Stephen Napier
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2013-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.