How best to interpret the minimal risk threshold in the EU Regulation on Clinical Trials?

Biomedical research involving minors or other persons incapable of giving consent raise many complex ethical issues, particularly when the research offers no prospect of direct therapeutic benefit to the participants. To protect such individuals from exploitation and undue risks that compromise their dignity, integrity, rights, and well-being, most ethical and regulatory standards prohibit the enrollment of incompetent subjects in studies that have no therapeutic potential, unless participation involves only minimal risk and burden. This well-established standard has also been adopted by Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use, and Repealing Directive 2001/20/EC, which recently entered into force. However, the provisions of the Regulation defining the minimal risk threshold are so ambiguous and confusing that they can easily be interpreted in ways that are unethical and inconsistent with the overall goals of the legislation. This paper critically analyzes the minimal risk requirement of the Clinical Trials Regulation and offers an ethically and legally sound interpretation of the threshold in “non-therapeutic” clinical trials involving selected categories of vulnerable subjects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diametros
Published
2025-06-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.2028
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How best to interpret the minimal risk threshold in the EU Regulation on Clinical Trials?

Joanna Różyńska
Diametros
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

How best to interpret the minimal risk threshold in the EU Regulation on Clinical Trials?

Joanna Różyńska
article en

Abstract

Biomedical research involving minors or other persons incapable of giving consent raise many complex ethical issues, particularly when the research offers no prospect of direct therapeutic benefit to the participants. To protect such individuals from exploitation and undue risks that compromise their dignity, integrity, rights, and well-being, most ethical and regulatory standards prohibit the enrollment of incompetent subjects in studies that have no therapeutic potential, unless participation involves only minimal risk and burden. This well-established standard has also been adopted by Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use, and Repealing Directive 2001/20/EC, which recently entered into force. However, the provisions of the Regulation defining the minimal risk threshold are so ambiguous and confusing that they can easily be interpreted in ways that are unethical and inconsistent with the overall goals of the legislation. This paper critically analyzes the minimal risk requirement of the Clinical Trials Regulation and offers an ethically and legally sound interpretation of the threshold in “non-therapeutic” clinical trials involving selected categories of vulnerable subjects.

DiametrosVol. 22(85)
Center for Practical Bioethics (US)
Narodowym Centrum Nauki
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

How best to interpret the minimal risk threshold in the EU Regulation on Clinical Trials? — Joanna Różyńska · Diametros (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS