Are Payments to Human Research Subjects Ethically Suspect?

Abstract

Bioethicists and institutional review boards often worry that paying human subjects too much money for research participation might compromise informed consent by coercing or unduly influencing individuals to enroll in studies against their better judgment. However, empirical research does not support the hypothesis that payments adversely impact judgment and decision-making concerning research participation, and the opposite problem - underpayment - also raises significant ethical concerns, such as exploitation, and under-enrollment. In this article, I argue that our ethical qualms about the negative impact of money on decisions concerning research participation are largely unfounded and reflect more general concerns about the need to avoid repeating abuses of human subjects that occurred in the past. I shall also argue that the best way to promote the rights and welfare of human research subjects is to treat them as competent adults who have the capacity to make wise choices involving money. What this argument means in practice is that offering human subjects money for their participation should not be regarded as ethically suspect, absent substantial evidence to the contrary.