Money, Consent, and Exploitation in Research
R. Ashcroft
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/152651601300169158
2001-02-01
Abstract:Christine Grady (2001) sets out very clearly the case for why payments to research subjects do not jeopardize informed consent. She writes in the tradition of the Nuremberg Code, most versions of the Declaration of Helsinki, and U.S. federal regulations in emphasising the primacy of consent as the index of the subject’s autonomous participation. She places great stress on the avoidance of coercion and “undue inouence.” It is possible that she is being too sanguine in her assumption that current regulations and regulators provide a arm guarantee that coercion is impossible. Nonetheless, philosophically her argument is correct: Consent is as good a test of the autonomy of participation as we can get. Her account of the diverse motives for participating in research is interesting, and it is unarguable that Institutional Review Boards and researchers cannot and should not inquire too closely into the motives of participants. This is true both in therapeutic and nontherapeutic research (a distinction Grady could have made clearer in her discussion). However, she has, in my opinion, missed the point of worries about anancial inducement. Payments do not affect the quality of the consent; rather they present the opportunity for exploitation of the subject, which is a different issue altogether. In the nineteenth century many liberals took the view that the state had no reason to intervene in lawful contracts or bargains struck between freely contracting individuals (Atiyah 1979). Provided neither party was misinformed about the nature of the bargain, and neither was coerced into striking it by some party, the state had no authority to release parties from their contractual obligations, and no right to legislate to make such bargains (or classes thereof) illegal and unenforceable. We might apply the doctrine of freedom of contract to research participation. The Nuremberg or Helsinki codes set out the code of practice—i.e., the conditions of performance—binding the researcher. In particular, they specify that the contract only binds the participants very weakly, since they can leave the experiment at any time without compromise to their medical or social care. Moreover, the performance of the research is subject to standard requirements of ethical medical practice. In light of this, there is little or no role for the state or for research ethics review, other than to review the documentation provided to participants. In particular, so long as participants note and understand the risks and beneats they are to undergo, there is no further reason to prevent them from undergoing these risks and beneats, and no reason to restrict payment to them as a “consideration” for their participation. However, no research regulator today applies the freedom of contract doctrine in this way. Current guidelines, including the most recent revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, do require review by independent ethics committee, which must examine the risk-beneat ratio to the participants on its own merits, and also must consider not only mental or institutional vulnerability, but also economic vulnerability (World Medical Association 2000). The latter would include the possibility that payments harm an individual—and not only in terms of their autonomy, but also in terms of their other interests. Part of the rationale for the abandonment (or at least the weakening) of the freedom of contract doctrine turns on the question of exploitation. Most of us would condemn pimping, for instance, because it involves the exploitation of the economic or other vulnerability of women or men, even if freely consented to. We might argue about the basis of this—for instance, whether it is a virtue ethics problem of corruption of the moral agent. But we can certainly distinguish two elements of exploitation—taking advantage of someone’s (relative) poverty to get them to do something they would not otherwise do, and taking advantage of someone’s (relative) poverty to get them to accept a price lower than the “fair” price. Of these the former is—as Grady discusses—difacult to assess and possibly meaningless. As she says, (almost) no one would go to work unless they were paid to do so. Her argument that there is a difference between payment for work and giving a small reward as a “thank you” to an altruistic participant seems to me disingenuous (Grady 2001). An altruist would presumably do this for nothing, or at cost (expenses only). An altruist might well be offended by the “reward.” Hence the more powerful objection to her view is based on the “unfair price” form of exploitation. The notion of an unfair price is notoriously slippery. Space does not permit a detailed analysis of this idea, but the basic notion—that paying someone a fee that does not measure the risk they are asked to undergo—is clear enough (Wertheimer 1996). More strongly, for some experiments, the very idea that the risk of harm is commensurable with money values is abhorrent (Anderson 1993). In sum, Grady’s view that payments are acceptable rests on a mistakenly narrow view of the scope of ethics review and on the coherence of the doctrine of freedom of contract. If we reject those premises, we must take seriously the idea of exploitation in research, which requires serious consideration of