Compensating for research risk
Permissible but not obligatory
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21513874 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Holly Fernandez Lynch (0000-0001-7813-9879, University of Pennsylvania, corresponding author), Emily A Largent (0000-0002-7536-5077, University of Pennsylvania) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 12 |
| Pages | 827-828 |
| Publication date | 2020-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Medical Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0306-6800 • E-ISSN: 1473-4257 |
| Publisher | BMJ (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1136/medethics-2020-106829 |
| PMID | 33051381 |
| OpenAlex | W3092120509 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 3 |
When payment is offered for controlled human infection model (CHIM) research, ethical concerns may be heightened due to unfamiliarity with this study design as well as perceptions—and misperceptions—regarding risk. Against this backdrop, we commend Grimwade et al 1 for their careful handling of the relevant issues, coupling empirical and conceptual approaches. We agree with foundational elements of the authors’ analysis, including the acceptability of payment for research risk.1 However, in our view, it is preferable to treat payment for risk as a discretionary incentive to achieve adequate recruitment and retention, rather than compensation owed as a matter of fairness. Grimwade et al 1 note that although their ‘Payment for Risk Model’ was ‘created specifically in the context of CHIM research, it has the potential to inform payment in other areas of medical research.’ We agree and would go further: we do not need a special payment framework for CHIMs because there is nothing so novel about them compared with other types of research as to demand a distinct approach. Any successful payment framework must address the following ethical issues: preserving informed consent (avoiding coercion and undue inducement); treating participants fairly (avoiding exploitation); encouraging adequate recruitment and retention; avoiding deception by participants; and preserving public trust.2 Some of these issues may have particular salience in the context of CHIMs, but this study design does not demand consideration of entirely distinct ethical factors when evaluating offers of payment.2 We also agree with Grimwade et al 1 about several other key points.2 Given the burdens involved and
Actuarial science · Business · Deception · Economics · Incentive · Microeconomics · Payment · Political science · Public relations · Research ethics · Ethics in Clinical Research · Ethics in medical practice · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Psychology · Social Psychology · Finance
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2024 (5) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |