Sentence examples for harm to subjects from inspiring English sources

The study protocol must satisfy the three basic principles of the Belmont Report (a summary of ethical principles and guidelines for the conduct of research involving human subjects): 1) respect for persons, 2) beneficence (avoiding harm to subjects and maximizing the benefits compared with the risks of participation), and 3) justice.

Consistent with the Belmont Report, procedures to reduce risk and the potential risk of harm to subjects in this study was critical even though this study only involved administrative data with minimal risks.

That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context.Example: Asking a person on the street (meaning you don't know their name, job, etc) what they think of some basically innocuous topic (e.g., road repairs, the record of a local sporting team).

Research is needed to identify predisposition testing procedures that maximize benefits while minimizing harm to subjects.

Written informed consent was waived because the study was retrospective with no potential for harm to subjects.

The imperfections of the study design occur because the disease is difficult to diagnose since it is clinically occult, and the study designers must keep the risk of potential harm to subjects as low as possible.

Systematic studies demonstrating the degrees to which IRBs in fact reduce concrete harms to subjects are still lacking.

One could argue that as long as harms to subjects are minimized, investigators do not need to maximize benefits to subjects if this will adversely affect the research that is likely to benefit the population (Miller and Brody 2002).

Long-term planning and methodical approaches in the design of studies of early application of medical devices can mitigate conflicts of interest or improper research oversight that could result in harm or injury to study subjects.

The reason why we did so are two: firstly, we consider the radiation of DXA measurement may do harm to the subjects; secondly, this is a preliminary study in which we just want to address the potential but not to draw the conclusion whether adding a physical loading can improve the QUS based osteoporosis diagnosis.

We agree with the NRC (2004) that pesticide experiments on human subjects should not be conducted if the pesticides are expected to cause serious or irreversible harm to human subjects.