I was very happy to see this guest editorial: Pursuing Fair and Just Compensation for Research Participants: An Open Letter to the Research Ethics Community. From the paper:
Concerns over undue influence often arise in discussions of payment to research participants, and many research ethics oversight bodies default to “payment conservatism,” preferring minimal compensation to participants (or none at all) out of an abundance of caution (Largent and Fernandez Lynch Citation2017). This practice, however, is unfair and does not convincingly protect against harm or undue influence. . . .
Research participation generates immense social value, and generous compensation can reflect this value and serve as an important sign of respect and appreciation for participants
Read the whole thing here. I hope that more researchers in this area begin to see the errors of attempts to maintain compensation to medical research subjects at low rates. I have long maintained, both in this setting and in the case of compensation to egg donors, that the ability of any sum to "coerce" or "induce" participation is a function of individual financial need. As I argued in Sunny Samaritans and Egomaniacs: Price Fixing In The Gamete Market:
Ironically, the most likely effect of the ASRM price cap is to drive from the market the most highly desired egg donors, who tend to be better-educated and of a higher socioeconomic status. These donors are arguably in a better position to evaluate the risks of egg donation against the monetary benefits and should be less susceptible to the "coercive" effects of monetary compensation because they are more likely to have other income opportunities to choose from.
I directly address medical research subjects in the recently-posted "Repugnant Work":
Phase I subjects thus can, and do, register for multiple trials each year and many consider Phase I trial participation their profession. Though pharmaceutical researchers refer to Phase I research subjects as “paid volunteers,” Phase I test subjects themselves reject that term, embracing instead the label “professional guinea pig.”14 This contrasts with the articulated views of researchers, IRB boards, and ethicists, who worry that financial compensation undermines judgement or voluntariness. These parties thus urge limitations on the amounts paid to guinea pigs and frame their efforts in non-commercial terms—as subjects or volunteers, for example, rather than as workers or contractors.
Finally, one of the letter's primary authors, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Associate Professor of Medical Ethics in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the Perelman School of Medicine (PSOM), University of Pennsylvania, was a guest on the Taboo Trades podcast, where she discussed this and other issues with seminar students.
Related Posts:
Egg Donor Antitrust Suit In Today’s WSJ
- Sunny Samaritans’ Suit Survives
- ASRM Seeks Dismissal of Egg Donor Suit
- Kamakahi v. ASRM et al. — Updates
- Politics And Profits in The Egg Business (When Sunny Samaritans Sue, IV)
- When Sunny Samaritans Sue, Part III
- When Sunny Samaritans Sue, Continued
- When Sunny Samaritans Sue
- The Value of Smart Eggs