However, every job's benefits, tasks list and more are all so different.
Since the risk-benefit tasks are conflated, the various tasks are necessarily simplified and confused.
Thus, the Net Risk Test in principle encompasses all the risk-benefit tasks without taking into account the distinctions, the chronological order among the various tasks, nor the division of labor in the various risk-benefit tasks.
In decision studies, each of the risk-benefit tasks is a system in itself that ought not to be conflated.
These are legitimate concerns; nevertheless, RECs must know when these concepts play a role in the various risk-benefit tasks.
Hence, again, what we have is a system that touches on each of the risk-benefit tasks without making a distinction among the various tasks.
Thus, we would need to look deeper into the Net Risk Test to justify our claim that it conflates the various risk-benefit tasks.
It further requires research ethicists to allow decision studies discourses into the current discussion on the risk-benefit tasks of RECs.
Lastly, we shall assert that RECs would benefit by looking into the current inputs of decision studies on the various risk-benefit tasks.
We have seen that the various risk-benefit tasks are resource intensive (since various experts must be involved), necessarily complex (since a drug trial is rarely simple), and time consuming.
Precisely because of this conflation, plus the consideration that all the risk-benefit tasks ought to be done within the time restrictions of an REC, both procedure-level approaches cursorily and confusedly "accomplish" the various tasks.
