In risk-benefit assessment for research involving human subjects, which statement is correct?

• A. Risks must be minimized irrespective of potential benefits.
• B. Risks and benefits should be weighed to justify research.
• C. Only benefits matter.
• D. No review is necessary.

Answer: (B)

Balancing risk and potential benefit is what determines whether research with people is ethically acceptable. The best statement reflects that you don’t just push ahead with benefits or minimize risks in isolation; you weigh both sides to see if the risks are reasonable in light of the anticipated knowledge and potential gains.

In practice, review bodies assess how harmful and burdensome the risks could be, what direct or indirect benefits might accrue to participants or to society, and how important the knowledge to be gained is. If the potential benefits justify the risks, and those risks are appropriately minimized and managed, the study can be ethically acceptable. If the risks outweigh the potential benefits, or if risks aren’t minimized, the research isn’t justified.

The other ideas miss this balance. Risks minimized irrespective of benefits is too rigid and ignores whether the benefits could sufficiently justify the risks. Focusing only on benefits ignores potential harms to participants. And claiming no review is necessary contradicts the fundamental ethical safeguards in human subjects research.