Article Text
Abstract
Each year thousands of individuals enrol in clinical trials as healthy volunteers to earn money. Some of them pursue research participation as a full-time or at least a part-time job. They call themselves professional or semiprofessional guinea pigs. The practice of paying healthy volunteers raises numerous ethical concerns. Different payment models have been discussed in literature. Dickert and Grady argue for a wage-payment model. This model gives research subjects a standardised hourly wage, and it is based on an assumption that research participation is morally indistinguishable from other forms of unskilled labour. In this paper, I will challenge this assumption. I will argue that human guinea pigging has particular characteristics which taken together make it significantly different from other forms of labour. (1) Participation in research is skill-independent. Healthy volunteers are valuable not because they are skilful persons, but because they are human bodies. (2) The role of research volunteers is mainly passive. They are not asked to produce goods or deliver services. They are paid for enduring unpleasant, painful and risky interventions performed by investigators. (3) Research volunteering involves inherent risks and uncertainties, and subjects have little or no control over their minimisation and materialisation. I conclude that participation in clinical research is a specific kind of activity. It is more like renting out one’s body to strangers, than working. Thus, research participation should not be treated on par with other forms of employment.
- clinical trials
- drugs and drug industry
- research ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding This analysis was funded by the National Science Centre, Poland, grant no 2015/17/B/HS1/02390.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Researching about us without us: exploring research participation and the politics of disability rights in the context of the Mental Capacity Act 2005
- Exploitation and enrichment: the paradox of medical experimentation
- Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research?
- Better recognition for research participants: what society should learn from covid-19
- An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research
- What factors are important to parents making decisions about neonatal research?
- Increasing the amount of payment to research subjects
- Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions
- “Fair’s fair argument” and voluntarism in clinical research: But, is it fair?
- Scientific research is a moral duty