Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2026

The Resident-intruder Paradigm: A Standardized Test for Aggression, Violence and Social Stress
Published on: July 4, 2013
The duty to exclude: excluding people at undue risk from research
Abstract:
The clinical trial is the major investigational tool of clinical medicine. Two recent reports highlight the fact that the most often quoted mechanisms for the protection of research subjects, viz., research ethics board review and eligibility criteria, are insufficient to achieve this end. In this paper, we argue that the prime mechanism for the protection of persons in clinical trials should be the clinical judgement of the physician-investigator. The clinical investigator has a duty to protect subjects from both harm and undue risk. It is argued that the clinical investigator has a duty to screen for, and exclude, potential research subjects who may be unduly vulnerable to the risks of a particular clinical trial. In order to fulfill this obligation, the investigator should personally screen each potential research subject at the time of accrual. In larger trials in which this is not feasible, this task could be delegated to another appropriately qualified health care professional, with the principal investigator retaining personal responsibility. To reinforce and make explicit this legal and moral duty, we propose that the investigator sign a statement, appended to each subject's consent form, to attest that this duty has been responsibly discharged.
Insights
Physician-investigators should use clinical judgment to protect research subjects in clinical trials. This involves personally screening for and excluding vulnerable individuals to ensure participant safety and ethical conduct.
Area of Science:
- Clinical Medicine
- Medical Research Ethics
Background:
- Existing protections for clinical trial participants, such as ethics board review and eligibility criteria, are insufficient.
- Recent reports indicate a need for enhanced subject protection mechanisms in clinical research.
Purpose of the Study:
- To argue for the central role of physician-investigator clinical judgment in protecting research subjects.
- To propose a method for reinforcing the investigator's duty to protect participants from harm and undue risk.
Main Methods:
- Literature review and argumentation based on ethical and legal duties of investigators.
- Proposal for a signed statement by the investigator on each subject's consent form.
Main Results:
- Clinical judgment by the physician-investigator is the primary mechanism for protecting individuals in clinical trials.
- Investigators have a duty to screen for and exclude potentially vulnerable subjects.
Conclusions:
- Physician-investigators must actively use clinical judgment to safeguard participants in clinical trials.
- A formal attestation of this duty on consent forms can enhance accountability and ethical practice in clinical research.
Related Concept Videos
Ethics in Research
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Transmission-based Precautions II: Airborne and Protective Environment
Airborne precautions:
Use airborne precautions when treating patients known or suspected to have diseases that spread through the air—for example, tuberculosis or measles. These organisms are present in smaller droplets expelled by an infected person and...
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies

