Which statement describes the requirement regarding members with primary interests outside medical sciences?

• A. There must be at least one member whose primary interest is not in medical sciences.
• B. All members come from medical sciences.
• C. No independent member is required.
• D. The chair must be a non-medical scientist.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that an ethics review body needs a viewpoint from outside the medical sciences to guard against a purely clinical or scientific bias. By including at least one member whose primary interests are not in medical sciences, the committee gains a perspective from ethics, law, lay/public concerns, or other non-clinical areas. This helps ensure that participant rights, consent processes, risk–benefit assessments, and the overall study design are examined with attention to clarity, fairness, and broader societal implications, not just scientific merit.

That’s why the statement about having at least one member outside medical sciences is the best match. It acknowledges the need for diverse expertise on the board to protect participants and maintain public trust.

The other ideas don’t fit this requirement. Having all members from medical sciences would limit the committee’s perspective. The notion about independence is a separate consideration from the requirement about non-medical primary interests, and the need for the chair to be a non-medical scientist is not a stated requirement.