Journal
KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages 369-393Publisher
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1353/ken.2004.0041
Keywords
-
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Despite its mandate on minimizing harms in clinical trials, the Common Rule provides little guidance as to how IRBs should evaluate risk. The Common Rule and derivative commentaries tend to conceptualize risk review as an expert-based endeavor aimed at an objective and universal evaluation of possible harm; they also have tended to locate risk in the research activity itself rather than in the context of the research. These views of risk conflict with scholarship showing that risk evaluations are socially determined even among experts, that the context of harms can influence how persons evaluate risks, and that forums that approach risk assessment as a technical endeavor bracket from discussion the numerous values that ground risk judgments. Possible reforms are proposed for clinical trial risk review that would render it more inclusive of the different types of risks encountered and more attuned to the priorities of trial subjects.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available