Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (9):638-642 (2018)

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. Participation in research is skill-independent. Healthy volunteers are valuable not because they are skilful persons, but because they are human bodies. 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. 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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2017-104267
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 57,199
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Payment for Research Participation: A Coercive Offer?A. Wertheimer & F. G. Miller - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (5):389-392.
Inducement in Research.Martin Wilkinson & Andrew Moore - 1997 - Bioethics 11 (5):373-389.
Ending Concerns About Undue Inducement.Ezekiel J. Emanuel - 2004 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (1):100-105.
Ending Concerns About Undue Inducement.Ezekiel J. Emanuel - 2004 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (1):100-105.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Risk, Double Effect and the Social Benefit Requirement.Robert C. Hughes - forthcoming - Journal of Medical Ethics:medethics-2019-106034.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Is It Not the Case? On the Epistemological Significance of a Clinical Case.Carlo Gabbani - 2015 - Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 8 (1):36-38.
»Recht auf Arbeit« nach der Vollbeschäftigung.Matthias Möhring-Hesse - 1998 - Zeitschrift Für Evangelische Ethik 42 (1):5-14.
Symbol, Exchange and Birth: Towards a Theory of Labour and Relation.Anne O’Byrne - 2004 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 30 (3):355-373.
Clinical Judgment and the Rationality of the Human Sciences.Eugenie Gatens-Robinson - 1986 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 11 (2):167-178.
The Division of Epistemic Labour.Geoffrey Brennan - 2010 - Analyse & Kritik 32 (2):231-246.
Resources, Capacities, and Ownership.Ian Shapiro - 1991 - Political Theory 19 (1):47-72.


Added to PP index

Total views
18 ( #562,809 of 2,412,038 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #538,761 of 2,412,038 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes