Updated July 1, 2021 Show
Research Risk DefinedFederal regulations at 45 CFR 46.102 item (j), define minimal risk as "... the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests." For example, the risk of drawing a small amount of blood from a healthy individual for research purposes is no greater than the risk of doing so as part of routine physical examination. Risks to participants should be reasonable in relation to potential benefits, if any, to participants, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. Risks to participants should be minimized by using procedures that are consistent with sound research design and do not unnecessarily expose participants to risk. Determinations of greater than minimal risk are deduced from the definition for minimal risk. Research risk can refer to:
The IRB must evaluate risk. The IRB should consider whether the anticipated benefit, either of new knowledge or of improved health for participants, justifies inviting any person to undertake the risks. The IRB should not approve research if risks are unreasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. IRB reviewers should be diligent to focus only on the risks associated with the protocol that are directly related to the research. Risks associated with the standard of care procedures that may provide the framework for the research should not factor into the risk classification. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research. Effect of Risk Magnitude and Probability on Level of RiskOnce the risks associated with the research have been identified, the process of categorizing the risks as minimal or greater than minimal may begin. Two characteristics influence the nature of the risk: 1) the probability of harm; 2) the magnitude of harm. The magnitude of harm can be related to the severity, duration and reversibility of a potential harm. The IRB reviewer should consider both the likelihood and magnitude of harm and whether they are greater than those encountered in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations. In determining if research risk is minimal or greater than minimal, Principal Investigators (PIs) and the IRB must consider both the magnitude and probability of harm that may result from a risk. For example:
The degree of magnitude/probability, what the magnitude/probability may mean to participants, and type of risk bear consideration require more careful assessment. For example:
Regulatory Requirements for Research RiskThe federal regulations for IRB criteria for approval of research include two requirements related to research risk: At §46.111 item (a)(1), the regulations specify risks must be minimized and that research should not unnecessarily expose participants to risk. Suggestions for minimizing risk include using:
At §46.111 (a)(2), the regulations specify risks must be reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits to participants (if any) and to the importance of the knowledge that may be reasonably expected to result. In this regard, the regulations clarify that the IRB must consider:
Some of the basic and additional requirements for informed consent specify requirements for disclosure of risk to participants. The regulations at §46.116 require investigators to:
The regulations also require additional safeguards for research involving vulnerable populations. For more information, see IRB policy for pregnant women/fetuses; prisoners; children; adults with impaired decision-making capacity; and persons who may be economically or educationally disadvantaged. Identification and Assessment of Research RiskIn identifying risks, investigators and the IRB should consider only those risks that may be reasonably expected to occur as the result of the research. The IRB reviewer then assesses whether the risk to participants is reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits to participants, if any, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. The IRB should not base risk determinations on risks associated with therapies or procedures participants would experience even if not participating in the research. However, participants should be informed of risks associated with procedures provided during or associated with the research, even if provided as standard-of-care. To identify risks, it may be useful to consider categories of risks. The following is not meant to be definitive. It simply provides a framework for assessing risk. (See IRB policy for risks related to participant privacy or data confidentiality.) Harms from Research Design
Harms from Lack of Resources Necessary to Protect Research Participants
Physical HarmsMore common to medical or biological research than to social, behavioral, or educational research, physical harms include exposure to
Physical discomforts associated with prolonged fasting for a research procedure must also be considered. When assessing physical harms, the IRB must determine if the research risks are greater than those associated with medically indicated interventions. Research designed to evaluate new drugs or procedures may present more than minimal risk and may include unforeseen risks to participants or fetuses in pregnant women, or mutagenic effects. Psychological HarmsPsychological harms may result from undesirable changes in thoughts and emotions (e.g., depression, confusion, anxiety, guilt, or loss of self-esteem). These changes may be transitory, recurrent, or permanent. The duration affects the magnitude of harm. Stress and feelings of guilt or embarrassment may arise from thinking or talking about one's own behavior or attitudes on sensitive topics such as drug use, sexual preferences, selfishness, and violence. Researchers may manipulate participants' environments to induce stress. IRBs must also consider the possibility of psychological harm when behavioral research involves deception, particularly if the deception includes false feedback to participants about their own performance. When incomplete disclosure or deception is used, debriefing participants after their participation may minimize risk of psychological harm. Social and Economic HarmsSome research may result in embarrassment within one's business or social group, loss of employment, or criminal prosecution. Research may yield information that could "label" or "stigmatize" participants. Areas of sensitivity include research involving alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness, illegal activities, and sexual behavior. Researchers and the IRB must be acutely aware of negative repercussions that may result from breaches of privacy or confidentiality related to participation in a specific research study. Plans for follow-up contact in such studies requires special precautions to minimize unauthorized disclosure. Minimizing RisksAs noted previously, federal regulations require that risks are minimized (i.e., reduced or managed). Investigators and the IRB must determine that, to the degree possible, precautions, safeguards, and alternatives have been incorporated into the research activity to:
Risks may be minimized by ensuring PIs possess the requisite competence in the area being studied and have the resources necessary to safely conduct the research. To evaluate whether other, less risky methods might yield the desirable results, IRBs assess information about the scientific rationale and experimental design underlying the proposed research and the statistical basis for the investigation. IRBs compare effects of the experimental treatment or of receiving no treatment at all to effects of treatments that might be administered in ordinary practice. IRBs consider whether harmful effects can be adequately detected, prevented, or treated; and whether the risks and complications of underlying diseases may be unnecessarily exacerbated by the research. IRBs must evaluate whether the research design will yield useful data. When the sample size is too small to yield valid conclusions or a hypothesis is imprecisely formulated, participants may be exposed to risk without sufficient justification. Investigators must be cognizant of potential conflicts that may result from serving dual roles. For example, an investigator's eagerness for a participant to continue in a research project to amass more data may conflict with her/his/their responsibility as the treating physician to discontinue a therapy that is not helpful or may be harmful. (See IRB policy for inherently influential recruitment situations for more information and examples about conflicting researcher roles.) Risk is minimized by incorporating adequate safeguards into research design wherever possible. Safeguards may include:
|