Article Text
PDFCommentary
Compensating for research risk: permissible but not obligatory
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter @hollylynchez
Contributors HFL wrote the first draft. Both authors contributed to conceptual analysis, substantive editing, and final approval of the manuscript.
Funding This authors receive funding from the Greenwall Foundation as Faculty Scholars (no award number).
Competing interests Both authors received an honorarium from 1Day Sooner for producing an independent report on the ethics of payment for participation in human infection challenge studies: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3674548.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model
- Fair go: pay research participants properly or not at all
- Commentary on 'Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model'
- On measuring attitudes about payment for research
- Payment in challenge studies from an economics perspective
- Should practice and policy be revised to allow for risk-proportional payment to human challenge study participants?
- Protocol for the challenge non-typhoidal Salmonella (CHANTS) study: a first-in-human, in-patient, double-blind, randomised, safety and dose-escalation controlled human infection model in the UK
- Controlled human infection with Neisseria lactamica in late pregnancy to measure horizontal transmission and microbiome changes in mother–neonate pairs: a single-arm interventional pilot study protocol
- Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy
- Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?