Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test.

D Wendler1, F G Miller

  • 1Department of Clinical Bioethics, The NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. dwendler@nih.gov

Journal of Medical Ethics
|August 1, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Thermal helium beam diagnostic for 2D profile measurements in the divertor of ASDEX Upgrade.

The Review of scientific instruments·2024
Same author

Linearized spectrum correlation analysis for thermal helium beam diagnostics.

The Review of scientific instruments·2021
Same author

Response-Evaluating human trials: FDA's role.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2018
Same author

Bystander risk, social value, and ethics of human research.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2018
Same author

Children as hematopoietic cell donors in research: when is it approvable?

Bone marrow transplantation·2014
Same author

There are (STILL) no coercive offers.

Journal of medical ethics·2013
Same journal

Ethics briefing.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Medical ethics and categorisation.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Suspension or prioritisation? Exploring the ethics of age-based rationing in adult ADHD services.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Ethics of not knowing who we are talking to in qualitative research.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Suicide is not a public health issue and perhaps very few things should be.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Normalising transparency: an argument for requiring generative AI use declarations in all manuscripts-with a call for commentaries.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
See all related articles

Research ethics committees (RECs) face challenges distinguishing therapeutic from non-therapeutic interventions. The net risks test offers a clearer approach by comparing intervention risks and benefits to alternatives, enhancing participant protection.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Clinical Research Oversight

Background:

  • Research ethics committees (RECs) utilize dual-track assessment, which complicates risk evaluation due to the ambiguous distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions.
  • This ambiguity poses challenges for RECs in accurately assessing the ethical implications of research protocols.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose and evaluate the net risks test as a more effective method for research ethics committees.
  • To enhance the protection of human research participants by refining risk assessment methodologies.

Main Methods:

  • The study contrasts the dual-track assessment with the proposed net risks test.
  • The net risks test is described as a clinically familiar method focusing on risk-benefit analysis against alternatives.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The net risks test provides a clearer framework for assessing research intervention risks compared to dual-track assessment.
  • This method shifts focus towards the core ethical obligation of protecting research participants.

Conclusions:

  • The net risks test offers a superior alternative to dual-track assessment for research ethics committees.
  • Implementing the net risks test can improve the ethical oversight of clinical research and strengthen participant safety.