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

Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller's "Assessing research risks systematically".

C Weijer1, P B Miller

  • 1Department of Philosophy, Talbot College, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7. charles.weijer@dal.ca

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

When is a randomised controlled trial health equity relevant? Development and validation of a conceptual framework.

BMJ open·2017
Same author

How to design efficient cluster randomised trials.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2017
Same author

Laparoscopic surgery improves pregnancy outcomes in women with suspected endometriosis with or without pathological confirmation.

Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology·2016
Same author

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT-equity guideline to improve reporting of health equity in randomized trials.

Implementation science : IS·2015
Same author

Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2011
Same author

A comparison of journal instructions regarding institutional review board approval and conflict-of-interest disclosure between 1995 and 2005.

Journal of medical ethics·2008
Same journal

Assisted dying and autonomy as an end in itself: a response to Donaldson.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
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
See all related articles

The net risks test fails to meet essential ethical criteria for research. This analysis demonstrates it does not protect subjects or adequately evaluate research risks and benefits.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Clinical Research Ethics

Background:

  • The "net risks test" was proposed as an alternative to traditional benefit-harm analysis in research ethics.
  • Critics argue the dominant benefit-harm analysis, including component analysis, is insufficient.
  • The net risks test was challenged to meet five specific ethical criteria.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate whether the proposed "net risks test" meets the five criteria for an ethical research analysis.
  • To determine if the net risks test is a viable alternative to component analysis in research ethics.

Main Methods:

  • Critical analysis of the "net risks test" against established ethical standards for research.
  • Evaluation of the net risks test's ability to address specific challenges in clinical research, including mixed interventions and physician-patient communication.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The net risks test fails to meet any of the five proposed ethical criteria.
  • The test does not adequately protect research subjects.
  • It does not provide a consistent framework for evaluating research risks and benefits.

Conclusions:

  • The "net risks test" is not a viable alternative to component analysis in research ethics.
  • The proposed test falls short in protecting participants and guiding ethical research practices.
  • Component analysis remains the more robust ethical framework for evaluating research.