Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec;46(12):815-826.
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106438. Epub 2020 Sep 25.

Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model

Affiliations

Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model

Olivia Grimwade et al. J Med Ethics. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) research involves the infection of otherwise healthy participants with disease often for the sake of vaccine development. The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the urgency of enhancing CHIM research capability and the importance of having clear ethical guidance for their conduct. The payment of CHIM participants is a controversial issue involving stakeholders across ethics, medicine and policymaking with allegations circulating suggesting exploitation, coercion and other violations of ethical principles. There are multiple approaches to payment: reimbursement, wage payment and unlimited payment. We introduce a new Payment for Risk Model, which involves paying for time, pain and inconvenience and for risk associated with participation. We give philosophical arguments based on utility, fairness and avoidance of exploitation to support this. We also examine a cross-section of the UK public and CHIM experts. We found that CHIM participants are currently paid variable amounts. A representative sample of the UK public believes CHIM participants should be paid approximately triple the UK minimum wage and should be paid for the risk they endure throughout participation. CHIM experts believe CHIM participants should be paid more than double the UK minimum wage but are divided on the payment for risk. The Payment for Risk Model allows risk and pain to be accounted for in payment and could be used to determine ethically justifiable payment for CHIM participants.Although many research guidelines warn against paying large amounts or paying for risk, our empirical findings provide empirical support to the growing number of ethical arguments challenging this status quo. We close by suggesting two ways (value of statistical life or consistency with risk in other employment) by which payment for risk could be calculated.

Keywords: coercion; research ethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: AJP and JoO are both Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) investigators. JoO is an investigator on CHIM studies funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council & Medical Research Future Fund. AJP is a CHIM investigator and codirector of the UK MRC Hic-Vac network. AJP is Chair of UK DHSC's JCVI and is a member of the WHO’s SAGE. AJP is an NIHR Senior Investigator.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
WTAP as a function of risk. Respondents indicated their WTAP (y-axis) on a slider scale from 0: strongly disagree to 6: strongly agree in response to the statement ‘(the potential participant) should be allowed to participate in the study’. This was indicated for each hypothetical study involving each risk category (x-axis). Mean values are labelled. CHIM, Controlled Human Infection Model; WTAP, willingness to allow participation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Required payment as a function of risk. Respondents indicated required payment in £/hour on slider scale from £0 to >£40 (y-axis) in response to each risk category (x-axis). An approximate minimum wage in the UK of £8/hour was provided to respondents as a reference point. Mean values are labelled. CHIM, Controlled Human Infection Model.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Roestenberg M, Hoogerwerf M-A, Ferreira DM, et al. . Experimental infection of human volunteers. Lancet Infect Dis 2018;18(10):e312–22. 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30177-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Darton TC, Blohmke CJ, Moorthy VS, et al. . Design, recruitment, and microbiological considerations in human challenge studies. Lancet Infect Dis 2015;15(7):840–51. 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00068-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gordon SB, Rylance J, Luck A, et al. . A framework for controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies in Malawi: report of a Wellcome trust workshop on CHIM in low income countries held in Blantyre, Malawi. Wellcome Open Res 2017;2. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.12256.1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tacket CO, Cohen MB, Wasserman SS, et al. . Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentered trial of the efficacy of a single dose of live oral cholera vaccine CVD 103-HgR in preventing cholera following challenge with Vibrio cholerae O1 El Tor Inaba three months after vaccination. Infect Immun 1999;67(12):6341–5. 10.1128/IAI.67.12.6341-6345.1999 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jin C, Gibani MM, Moore M, et al. . Efficacy and immunogenicity of a Vi-tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine in the prevention of typhoid fever using a controlled human infection model of Salmonella typhi: a randomised controlled, phase 2B trial. The Lancet 2017;390(10111):2472–80. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32149-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances