Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

When “minimal risk” research yields clinically-significant data, maybe the risks aren’t so minimal

  • Helen M. Sharp
  • , Robert D. Orr

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Surveys and routine clinical procedures applied in research protocols are typically considered only minimally risky to participants. The apparent benign nature of “minimal risk” tasks increases the chance that investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) will overlook the probability that clinical tools will identify signs, symptoms, or definitive test results that are clinically-relevant to subjects’ welfare. “Minimal risk” procedures may also pose a particular hazard to participants in clinical research by increasing the therapeutic misconception because the tasks mimic clinical care and are often conducted in clinical settings. Investigators should anticipate which measures could yield clinically-important findings and should describe explicit plans for data monitoring, disclosure, and follow-up. Protocols that include reliable and valid clinical measures should prompt a more detailed risk assessment by the IRB, even when the tasks meet the regulatory criteria for minimal physical, psychological, or emotional risk.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)W32-W36
JournalAmerican Journal of Bioethics
Volume4
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2004
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Health Policy

Keywords

  • Behavioral research
  • Depression
  • Disclosure
  • Informed consent
  • Institutional review board (IRB)
  • Nontherapeutic human experimentation
  • Research ethics

Cite this