Should practice and policy be revised to allow for risk-proportional payment to human challenge study participants?
Share this article
Click the icon of the social media platform on which you would like to share this article.
Email this article to a friend
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.
Other content recommended for you
- Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model
- Compensating for research risk: permissible but not obligatory
- Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy
- Commentary on 'Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model'
- Fair go: pay research participants properly or not at all
- On measuring attitudes about payment for research
- Uncertainty, error and informed consent to challenge trials of COVID-19 vaccines: response to Steel et al
- Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia
- Do coronavirus vaccine challenge trials have a distinctive generalisability problem?
- COVID-19 controlled human infection studies: worries about local community impact and demands for local engagement