Article Text

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
Clinical research with economically disadvantaged populations
  1. Colleen C Denny,
  2. Christine Grady
  1. Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  1. Correspondence to:
 MsC C Denny
 Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, 10/1C118, Bethesda, MD 20892-1156, USA; dennycc{at}


Concerns about exploiting the poor or economically disadvantaged in clinical research are widespread in the bioethics community. For some, any research that involves economically disadvantaged individuals is de facto ethically problematic. The economically disadvantaged are thought of as “venerable” to exploitation, impaired decision making, or both, thus requiring either special protections or complete exclusion from research. A closer examination of the worries about vulnerabilities among the economically disadvantaged reveals that some of these worries are empirically or logically untenable, while others can be better resolved by improved study designs than by blanket exclusion of poorer individuals from research participation. The scientific objective to generate generalisable results and the ethical objective to fairly distribute both the risks and benefits of research oblige researchers not to unnecessarily bar economically disadvantaged subjects from clinical research participation.

  • ED, economically disadvantaged
  • IRB, institutional review board

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Funding: Funding for this manuscript was provided by the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, which had no role in the writing of the text.

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Human Services.

Linked Articles

  • Correction
    BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics

Other content recommended for you