Wage Payment Model For Human Guinea Pigs

Wage Payment Model for Human Guinea Pigs

What would you do if you were asked to get paid to spend the entire week lying down on a comfortable bed for human clinical trial? There will be medications to take and occasional checkups that might be disturbing, but considering the good pay, some might think it is worth the pain. Many of the research subjects, who are often called “guinea pigs,” participate in the human clinical research for the relatively easy money-making process. Since growing numbers of healthy subjects are involved in the clinical research for the money than the humanitarian reasons, many people feel that there should be strict regulations on the payment for each clinical trial according to the time and the level of discomfort during the study. Christine Grady (2005), from the Department of Clinical Bioethics, suggests four different payment models for clinical research subjects: market, wage-payment, reimbursement, and appreciation methods (Grady, 88). Although paying the subjects with wage-payment model might under-compensate some subjects in relation to their regular wages, the regulations on their payment will create a sense of equality, build stronger employer-employee relationship, and reduce undue inducement among research subjects.

Wage-payment model is known to be the fairest payment method, since the research subjects receive set amount of money for the time and effort they put into the research. According to Grady, research subjects are given the hourly wages to compensate for their contribution (Grady, 89). Apart from the set wages, the research subjects are paid for the extra amount of money depending on the level of discomfort and difficulty of the research. However, wage-payment model has more limitation on the payment than the other models in that it has little impact on recruitment. Carl Elliott (2008) elaborates in his article that most of the research subjects are the ones who do not have the income other than the ones they receive from guinea-pigging (Elliott, 67). However, on some occasions, relatively rich group of people participate in certain researches. For instance, in the article by Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD et al. (2004), the team of researchers at the University of Pennsylvania performed a clinical trial on both rich and poor group of research subjects to check their “willingness to participate” in the research (Halpern et al., 93). Since the research subjects with wage-payment model rarely receive the extra amount of money for their participation, it is less likely that those with high-paying jobs will be motivated to participate in the research. Since the money is not enough to attract wealthy group of subjects to participate in the research, wage-payment method will have little impact on recruitment.

However, unless there is a special reason for them to participate in the research, it is rarely the case that wealthy people will participate. According to Elliott, “the subjects are usually people who need money and have a lot of time to spare: the unemployed, college students, contract workers, ex-cons, or young people living on the margins who have decided that testing drugs is better than punching a clock with the wage slaves” (Elliott, 2008, 67). Therefore, considering the financial conditions of the research participants, wage-payment model best satisfy majority of participants in that it does not discriminate research subjects against heir financial and social status. Also, it is only fair for the research subjects to earn equal amount of money for the same work they have done.

Many people believe that it is only fair for the research subjects to receive the equal wages for the equal work they have done at the clinical trials. Compared to reimbursement model, where the research subjects are given different amount of money according to their actual wages, wage-payment model is the fairest form of payment since everyone involved in the research are paid for the same amount of money (Grady, 2005, 88). For example, assume that the university research center is recruiting for people from all different walks of life. The researchers promise to pay the research subjects the amount for money they would have otherwise made from their actual jobs and the additional personal expense spent during the research. Each subject will receive different amount of money for the same work they have done. It is not fair to pay the guinea pigs differently according to their social status, since they are contributing exact amount of time and effort on the same research. Robert P. Helms, who has been the human guinea pig of many years, discussed that the compensation should be based on the “time involved, how many procedures are needed, and how invasive and discomforting the procedures will be” (Helms, 2003, 76). The payment should be based upon the time and efforts spent during the research and nothing les or more than that. It would not be fair to pay them differently because some subjects are financially worth more than the other. Different payment will make some feel that they are less valued than the others. According to Trudo Lemmens, from University of Toronto and Carl Elliott, from University of Minnesota (2001), human clinical trials that do not follow wage payment model have “become a commercial transaction,” as there is more focus on the money of all the other things. (Lemmens and Elliott, 2001, 82). Subjects are treated unfairly as they receive different amount of money for the same research studies they participate. In non-regulatory payment settings, it is only natural for the research participants to look for the researches, in which they will make the most profit.

Moreover, the wage-payment model will help build a stronger bond between the researchers and the research subjects. Nancy King Reame (2001) from the University of Michigan explained that since the research subjects are paid to go under the clinical trials, many of them often feel that they are unappreciated for their work and less valued (Reame, 2001, 84).