Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Reply to comment
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
Narrative is determined not by a desire to narrate but by a desire to exchange. (Roland Barthes, S/Z)
What's New? Subscribe to Serendip Studio
Recent Group Comments
-
Serendip Visitor (guest)
-
rohit kumar (guest)
-
randhir kumar (guest)
-
Serendip Visitor (guest)
-
Anne (guest)
-
Florinda LG (guest)
-
omar (guest)
-
Chris Clauser (guest)
-
rain (guest)
-
Crystal Leonard
Recent Group Posts
A Random Walk
Play Chance in Life and the World for a new perspective on randomness and order.
New Topics
-
4 weeks 3 days ago
-
4 weeks 6 days ago
-
4 weeks 6 days ago
-
5 weeks 11 hours ago
-
5 weeks 11 hours ago
why I think financial compensation is ok
I'd like to comment on the issue of giving study participants financial compensation from what might be a unique perspective for the class. I am poor and several times a year I greatly consider signing up for clinical trials and other studies that I learn about. I will be the first to admit the main motivation for me is money. I've seen studies offering $2000-4000, which is A LOT of money for me. With just one little study I could pay a lot of bills. At this point I have participated in many psychology studies, but I have not actually participated in a clinical trial. To be honest, despite the very strong lure of the money, I'm scared of the potential risks. Thus far, I've decided that the money is not worth the risks and I've made do with finding other ways to pay the bills. I think a lot of people in my neck of the woods feel the same way. However, there is no doubt in my mind that most people do these studies for the money. Is this right? Maybe not. I recognize that these studies will attract those desperate to make money, which could be viewed as exploitative. However, I don't view payment alone as exploitative. If the people running the study have any scientific integrity at all they should be ensuring that the study population is representative of the general population. There should be safeguards in place to ensure that you don't have a study filled with people from the same socioeconomic class, whether that class be wealthy or poor. If this is not the case, then the whole study is flawed and those running the study are unethical. But if there are safeguards in place, I see nothing wrong with it. No one, myself included, is going to do a clinical trial without compensation. It just isn't going to happen. So why shouldn't they be compensated? Those who are extremely desperate are going to find ways to make the money somehow, and the alternatives are often more dangerous than participating in a legitimate, well-designed clinical trial. Regardless of my views, it is certainly a tricky subject. In my opinion there are two major ways to prevent the exploitation of the poor when it comes to compensation for clinical studies. One way would be to have greater oversight of these studies by the government. Another option, as Prof. Grobstein mentioned in class, is a redistribution of wealth, or at the very least, social programs that can help those that are desperate enough for money that they are willing to sell their body in either legitimate or illegitimate venues. In either case, it is a matter of public policy that will be hotly debated.