Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-5wl6q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-10T01:41:35.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Living Wage for Research Subjects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Trisha B. Phillips
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Offering cash payments to research subjects is a common recruiting method, but this practice continues to be controversial because of its potential to compromise the protection of human subjects. Some critics question whether researchers should be allowed to offer money at all, citing concerns about commodification of the research subject, invalidation of study results, and increased risks to subjects. Other critics are comfortable with the idea of monetary payments but question how much researchers can pay their subjects, citing concerns about undue inducement, crowding out, and monetary exploitation. Focusing only on the amount researchers can pay their subjects, this paper argues that the federal regulations and guidelines should implement a standard payment formula. It argues for a wage payment model, and critically examines three candidates for a base wage: the nonfarm production wage, the FLSA minimum wage, and a living wage.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , Summer 2011 , pp. 243 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Critics used to worry that offers of money would compromise the voluntariness of consent, but this concern about coercion has recently been put to rest. For more, see Wertheimer, A. and Miller, F., “Payment for Research Participation: A Coercive Offer?” Journal of Medical Ethics 34, no. 5 (2009): 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
This paper discusses the issue as it pertains to adult subjects participating in domestic trials. Payments to children or their guardians, and payments to subjects in internationally sponsored trials raise separate and additional concerns that will not be addressed in this paper.Google Scholar
For example, see Macklin, R., “Due and Undue Inducements: On Paying Money to Research Subjects,” IRB 3, no. 1 (1981): 1–6; and McNeil, P., “Paying People to Participate in Research: Why Not?” Bioethics; 11, no. 5 (1997): 390–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, see Dickert, N. and Grady, C., “What's the Price of a Research Subject? Approaches to Payment for Research Participation,” New England Journal of Medicine 341, no. 3 (1999): 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, see Phillips, T., “Exploitation in Payments to Research Subjects,” Bioethics 25, no. 4 (2011); and Ashcroft, R., “Money, Consent, and Exploitation in Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 2 (2001): 62–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, see Grady, C., “Recruitment of Research Subjects,” SoCRA Source 27 (2001): 33–37; Aby, J., Pheley, A., and Steinberg, P., “Motivation for Participation in Clinical Trials of Drugs for the Treatment of Asthma, Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis, and Perennial Nonallergic Rhinitis,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology 76, no. 4 (1996): 348–354.Google Scholar
According to a recent study, 58% of all participants in a phase 1 trial cited money as their primary reason for participating. Forty-three percent of the participants were unemployed at the time of the trial. For more, see Stunkel, L., Benson, M., McLellan, L., Sinaii, N., Bedarida, G., Emanuel, E., and Grady, C., “Comprehension and Informed Consent: Assessing the Effect of a Short Consent Form,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 32, no. 4 (2010): 1–9.Google Scholar
According to Federal Regulations, “Informed consent must be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.” Title 45, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 46. Protection of Human Subjects: 45 C.F.R. § 46.111(a)(4); According to the handbook for interpreting the regulations published by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), “Investigators may seek consent only under circumstances that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence.” See the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), IRB Guidebook, at Chapter 3, Section B, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_guidebook.htm> (last visited March 22, 2011). (last visited March 22, 2011).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=According+to+Federal+Regulations,+“Informed+consent+must+be+sought+from+each+prospective+subject+or+the+subject's+legally+authorized+representative.”+Title+45,+U.S.+Code+of+Federal+Regulations+(CFR),+Part+46.+Protection+of+Human+Subjects:+45+C.F.R.+§+46.111(a)(4);+According+to+the+handbook+for+interpreting+the+regulations+published+by+the+Department+of+Health+and+Human+Services+(DHHS),+“Investigators+may+seek+consent+only+under+circumstances+that+minimize+the+possibility+of+coercion+or+undue+influence.”+See+the+Office+for+Human+Research+Protections+(OHRP),+IRB+Guidebook,+at+Chapter+3,+Section+B,+available+at++(last+visited+March+22,+2011).>Google Scholar
According to the handbook, “IRBs should review both the amount of payment and the proposed method of disbursement to assure that neither entails problems of coercion or undue influence. Such problems might occur, for example,…if the payment were unusually large.” See id. (OHRP), at Chapter 4, Section I.Google Scholar
Kimberly, M. B., Hoehn, K. S., Feudtner, C., Nelson, R. M., and Schreiner, M., “Variation in Standards of Research Compensation and Child Assent Practices: A Comparison of 69 Institutional Review Board-Approved Informed Permission and Assent Forms for 3 Multicenter Pediatric Clinical Trials,” Pediatrics 117, no. 5 (2006): 1706–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 1710.Google Scholar
Id., at 1709.Google Scholar
Latterman, J. and Merz, J. F., “How Much Are Subjects Paid to Participate in Research?” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 2 (2001): 45–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickert, N., Emanuel, E., and Grady, C., “Paying Research Subjects: An Analysis of Current Policies,” Annals of Internal Medicine 136, no. 5 (2002): 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickert, Emanuel, and Grady, contacted 53 research organizations and 32 responded (9 of 12 academic research centers; 7 of 20 large U.S. pharmaceutical companies; 8 of 12 contract research organizations; and 8 of 9 independent IRBs).Google Scholar
See Dickert, Emanuel and Grady, , supra note 14, at 372.Google Scholar
Id., at 373.Google Scholar
Id., at 372.Google Scholar
Id., at 372.Google Scholar
For example, see Fry, C. L., Ritter, A., Baldwin, S., Bowen, K. J., Gardiner, P., Holt, T., Jenkinson, R., and Johnston, J., “Paying Research Participants: A Study of Current Practices in Australia,” Journal of Medical Ethics 31, no. 9 (2005): 542–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Another issue is determining whether and to what extent additional factors should be calculated into payments. For example, questions arise on varying payments based on whether the subject is a healthy volunteer or a patient, and whether the payment amounts should include: (1) additions for risky, burdensome or uncomfortable procedures; (2) pro-rating schedules for partial completion; (3) completion bonuses; and (4) overtime pay for inpatient stays.Google Scholar
Andersen, J. and Weijer, C., “The Research Subject as Wage Earner,” Theoretical Medicine 23, nos. 4–5 (2002): 359–376; see Dickert, and Grady, , supra note 4; Grady, C., “Payment of Clinical Research Subjects,” Journal of Clinical Investigations 115, no. 7 (2005): 1681–1687; Dickert, et al., supra note 14; Dunn, L. and Gordon, N., “Improving Informed Consent and Enhancing Recruitment for Research by Understanding Economic Behavior,” JAMA 293, no. 5 (2005): 609–612; Saunders, C. and Sugar, A., “Letter to the Editor,” New England Journal of Medicine 341, no. 20 (1999): 1550–1551; Thompson, P., “Letter to the Editor,” New England Journal of Medicine 341, no. 20 (1999): 1551.Google Scholar
This list does not include reimbursement for actual expenses because this is not payment for participation.Google Scholar
The wage payment model is applicable to: (1) full-time, permanent work; (2) full-time, temporary work; (3) part-time, permanent work; and (4) part-time, temporary work. Participation in some studies, for example, an outpatient clinical trial, will be analogous to part-time, temporary work because it will include brief periods of active participation and longer periods of inactive participation. Participation in other studies, for example, multi-day inpatient studies, will be analogous to full-time, temporary work because subjects will have prolonged periods of active participation. For a second argument for the wage payment model, see Phillips, , supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Dickert, and Grady, , supra note 4, at 199.Google Scholar
For the purpose of payment, Dickert, and Grady, propose to treat all research subjects as unskilled workers because the contribution of each subject is similar to unskilled labor. The value of this contribution holds constant, even though any given research subject might otherwise be skilled (or unskilled) or employed (or unemployed).Google Scholar
See Dickert, and Grady, , supra note 4, at 201.Google Scholar
According to the ISI Web of Knowledge, Dickert, and Grady's, article has been cited in at least 105 other articles since 2000.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Releases, Table B-8: Average Hourly and Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-supervisory Employees on Private Nonfarm Payrolls by Industry Sector, Seasonally Adjusted, available at <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t24.htm> (last visited March 8, 2011).+(last+visited+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
See Dickert, and Grady, , supra note 4, at 201.Google Scholar
In 1999, when Dickert and Grady first proposed their base wage, the nonfarm production wage was $10.00/hr and the minimum wage was $5.15/hr. In 1999, the nonfarm production wage was nearly double the minimum wage; in 2010 it was more than double. United States Department of Labor, “Wage and Hour Division,” Minimum Wage available at <http://www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm> (last visited March 8, 2011).+(last+visited+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
See Dickert, and Grady, , supra note 4, at 200.Google Scholar
Dickert, and Grady, initially calculated a total payment of $390 based on a 29-hour commitment, the nonfarm production wage of $10/hr in 1998, and $100 supplement for the inconvenience of taking the drug and the discomfort of serial blood draws. Because this paper focuses only on the base wage (and not augmentations for risky, burdensome or uncomfortable procedures) the updated and comparison payments are simply the product of the base wage and the 29-hour commitment.Google Scholar
United States Department of Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage, available at <http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/fsa1938.htm> (last visited March 8, 2011).+(last+visited+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
For a list of exemptions, see United States Department of Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor: Exemptions, available at <http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/screen75.asp> (last visited March 8, 2011).+(last+visited+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
A number of organizations and researchers have recently made this claim. For example, Pollin, Robert argues that although the minimum wage was originally intended to be a living wage, these intentions are no longer realized because the minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation. “The real value of the national minimum wage as of 2001, at $5.15/hr, was 37% below its peak value in 1968 of $8.14 (in constant 2001 dollars), even while average labor productivity rose in the United States by roughly 80% between 1968 and 2001. This means that if the real value of the national minimum wage had risen exactly in step with the rate of productivity growth, the minimum wage as of 2001 would be $14.65. More to the point, someone who works full-time for 52 weeks at the $5.15 national hourly minimum would earn $10,712 for a year. This figure is 12.2% below the 2001 national poverty threshold for a family of two (one adult, one child), and a broad range of research consider such official poverty thresholds to be between 25% and 50% too low.” Pollin, R., “Evaluating Living Wage Laws in the United States: Good Intentions and Economic Reality in Conflict?” Economic Development Quarterly 19, no. 1 (2005): 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhauser, R. V. and Sabia, J. J., “The Effectiveness of Minimum-Wage Increases in Reducing Poverty: Past, Present, and Future,” Contemporary Economic Policy 25, no. 2 (2007): 262–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roston, E., “How Much Is a Living Wage?” Time 159, no. 14 (2002): 52–54.Google Scholar
For example, see Ballantyne, A., “HIV International Clinical Research: Exploitation and Risk,” Bioethics 19 (2005): 476–491; Miller, F. and Brody, H., “What Makes Placebo-Controlled Trials Unethical?” American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2002): 3–9; and Resnik, D., “Exploitation in Biomedical Research,” Theoretical Medicine 24, no. 3 (2003): 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, A., Exploitation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 230–236.Google Scholar
For example, see Participants of the 2001 Conference on Ethical Aspects of Research in Developing Countries, “Moral Standards for Research in Developing Countries: From ‘Reasonable Availability’ to ‘Fair Benefits,’” Hastings Center Report 34, no. 3 (2004): 17–27.Google Scholar
See Wertheimer, , supra note 41.Google Scholar
Grant, D. and Trautner, M. N., “Employer Opinions on Living Wage Initiatives,” WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society 8, no. 1 (2004): 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, A., “Sweatshop Reform: How to Solve the Standoff,” Business Week 3627 (May 3, 1999): 186–190; and Arnold, D. G. and Bowie, N. E., “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons,” Business Ethics Quarterly 13, no. 2 (2003): 221–242.Google Scholar
See Grant, and Trautner, , supra note 45.Google Scholar
Dictionary.com, s.v. “living wage,” available at <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/living+wage> (last visited March 8, 2011).+(last+visited+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
Glasmeier, A. K., Poverty in America: Living Wage Calculator, available at <http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/> (last visited March 8, 2011).+(last+visited+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
Universal Living Wage, available at <http://universallivingwage.org/> (last visited March 8, 2011).+(last+visited+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
The 2009 HHS Poverty Guidelines, available at <http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml> (last visited March 8, 2011).+(last+visited+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
Exceptions include the Harvard University Living Wage Campaign, available at <http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/∼pslm/livingwage/portal.html> (last visited March 8, 2011).+(last+visited+March+8,+2011).>Google Scholar
Wilson, J. and Hunter, D., “Research Exceptionalism,” American Journal of Bioethics 10, no. 8 (2010): 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The 2009 poverty level for a family of four was $22,050: $22,050/year x 110% ÷ 2,000 hours/year = $12.13/hour. See 2009 HHS Poverty Guidelines, supra note 51.Google Scholar
Halpern, S., Karlawish, J. H. T., and Casarett, D. et al., “Empirical Assessment of Whether Moderate Payments Are Undue Inducements for Participation in Clinical Trials,” Archives of Internal Medicine 164, no. 7 (2004): 801–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 801.Google Scholar
Bentley, J. P. and Thacker, P. G., “The Influence of Risk and Monetary Payment on the Research Participation Decision Making Process,” Journal of Medical Ethics 30, no. 3 (2004): 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 293.Google Scholar
See Stunkel, et al., supra note 7, at 6.Google Scholar
Id., at 7.Google Scholar
The studies have been challenged on at least three bases: (1) Bentley and Thacker's subjects were pharmacy student who had greater than average experience with clinical trials, which may have biased the sample in this study; (2) the largest payment tested in either study was $2000, which limits the scope of the findings; and (3) the studies recorded only hypothetical willingness to participate, which is different in important respects from actual willingness to participate, which challenges the ability of the study to answer the question of whether large payments are actually unduly inducive. For more on (1) and (2), see Ballantyne, A., “Benefits to Research Subjects in International Trials: Do They Reduce Exploitation or Increase Undue Inducement?” Developing World Bioethics 8, no. 3 (2008): 178–191; for more on (3) see Phillips, , supra note 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
While the Bentley and Thacker and the Halpern et al. studies showed that common payment amounts did not unduly induce potential subjects, we really do not know much about undue inducement. For example, we do not know whether it is a binary concept or a concept that admits of degrees. It could be that all payments beyond a certain threshold are equally unduly inducing and all payments below the threshold are equally non-unduly inducing; or it could be that payments are more or less inducing depending on the amount. Also, we do not know whether undue inducement, if it exists at all, is objective or subjective. It could be that any given payment is unduly inducing for some people but not others, or unduly inducing for some studies but not others. In any case, it is safe to assume that if undue inducement does indeed exist, then minimizing the amount of a payment will minimize the likelihood that the payment will be unduly inducing. See Bentley, and Thacker, , supra note 58; and Halpern, et al., supra note 56.Google Scholar
This does not require that all studies offer a payment amount sufficient to cover the living expenses of the subject/laborer; only that studies pay at a rate such that full time work would cover the living expenses of the subject/laborer.Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979), available at <http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html#gob3> (last visited March 8, 2011); and U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 45 C.F.R. § 46 and 21 C.F.R. § 56. Exceptions include privately funded research that will not be used to support an application for FDA approval and other exemption listed in 45 C.F.R. § 46.101b.+(last+visited+March+8,+2011);+and+U.S.+Code+of+Federal+Regulations+(CFR),+45+C.F.R.+§+46+and+21+C.F.R.+§+56.+Exceptions+include+privately+funded+research+that+will+not+be+used+to+support+an+application+for+FDA+approval+and+other+exemption+listed+in+45+C.F.R.+§+46.101b.>Google Scholar
According to Nancy King, “Payment to subjects, though technically a collateral benefit, is classified and treated separately [from the standard risk/benefit assessment] in research ethics and policy.” For more, see King, N., “Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28, no. 4 (2000): 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For a more thorough presentation of this argument, see Phillips, , supra note 5.Google Scholar
For an argument showing that monetary exploitation can be avoided by offering no money, see id.Google Scholar
For more, see id.Google Scholar
For more on the difference between a required payment and a required payment amount, see id.Google Scholar