Mandatory vaccination, including for COVID-19, can be ethically justified if the threat to public health is grave, the confidence in safety and effectiveness is high, the expected utility of mandatory vaccination is greater than the alternatives, and the penalties or costs for non-compliance are proportionate. I describe an algorithm for justified mandatory vaccination. Penalties or costs could include withholding of benefits, imposition of fines, provision of community service or loss of freedoms. I argue that under conditions of risk or perceived (...) risk of a novel vaccination, a system of payment for risk in vaccination may be superior. I defend a payment model against various objections, including that it constitutes coercion and undermines solidarity. I argue that payment can be in cash or in kind, and opportunity for altruistic vaccinations can be preserved by offering people who have been vaccinated the opportunity to donate any cash payment back to the health service. (shrink)

In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of—more or less well-justified—ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have aprima faciemoral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle (...) of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical “spine” of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical “skeleton” of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits). (shrink)

Grimwade et al highlight the current lack of a universal, standardised approach to the payment of participants taking part in controlled human infection model studies.1 As they discuss, payment for these studies is controversial, with many voicing arguments for and against higher payments, particularly for those studies which involve significant burdens to the participant. The main concerns about overpayment relate to the concepts of undue inducement or coercion, whereas underpayment raises concern about exploitation and unfair treatment. In many healthy volunteer (...) trials compensation for travel, time and inconvenience are generally accepted as fair payment, but payment for risk is less accepted, with a belief that non-therapeutic studies should only incur minimal risks, so payment for risk should not be necessary.2 This paper argues that payment for risk should be included for CHIM studies. Their findings among members of the UK public and CHIM experts from a variety of centres suggest that there is support for greater risks being associated with higher payments for participants. The amount of compensation offered by a trial has to be approved by an ethics committee/institutional review board, and some research suggests that IRB members have concerns about higher payments being offered, with only approximately one-third agreeing that payment should be offered for risk.3 Without agreement and clear guidance for calculating compensation for these types of trial, there is bound to be …. (shrink)

To prepare for potential human infection challenge studies involving SARS-CoV-2, we convened a multidisciplinary working group to address ethical questions regarding whether and how much SAR...

Human Infection Studies have emerged as an important research approach with the potential to fast track the global development of vaccines and treatments for infectious diseases, including in low resource settings. Given the high level of burdens involved in many HIS, particularly prolonged residency and biological sampling requirements, it can be challenging to identify levels of study payments that provide adequate compensation but avoid ‘undue’ levels of inducement to participate. Through this embedded ethics study, involving 97 healthy volunteers and other (...) research stakeholders in a malaria HIS programme in Kenya, and using in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and observations during and after a malaria HIS, we give a grounded account of ethical issues emerging in relation to study payments in this setting. While careful community, national, international scientific and ethics review processes meant that risks of serious harm were highly unlikely, the levels of motivation to join HIS seen could raise concerns about study payments being too high. Particular value was placed on the reliability, rather than level, of study payment in this setting, where subsistence livelihoods are common. Study volunteers were generally clear about the study aims at the point of recruitment, and this knowledge was retained over a year later, although most reported experiencing more burdens than anticipated at enrolment. Strict study screening procedures, regular clinical and laboratory monitoring of volunteers, with prompt treatment with antimalarial at predetermined endpoints suggested that the risks of serious harm were highly unlikely. Ethical concerns emerged in relation to volunteers’ attempts to conceal symptoms, hoping to prolong residency periods and increase study payments; and volunteers making decisions that compromised important family relationships and personal values. Our findings support an interpretation that, although study volunteers were keen to join the study to access cash payments, they also paid attention to other features of the study and the general clinical research landscape, including levels of risk associated with study participation. Overall, our analysis shows that the ethical concerns emerging from the study payments can be addressed through practical measures, hinged on reducing burdens and strengthening communication, raising important issues for research policy and planning. (shrink)

Human infection challenge studies provide illuminating case studies for several ongoing debates in research ethics, including those related to research risks and payment of participants. Grimwade et al 1 add to previous public engagement, qualitative evidence and philosophical literature on these topics.1–8 The authors advocate revision of research payment policy and practice based on their main finding that members of the public endorse ex ante payment of participants proportional to research-related risk exposure, in addition to post hoc compensation for any (...) lasting harms that occur.1 Although ‘payment for risk’ would diverge from most current research ethics guidelines, it is noteworthy that the difference in payment to participants that their framework would allow might only be small, at least in the case of currently accepted studies. The absolute difference would likely be small because the risk of currently accepted HCS participation is usually very low.9 10 On a ‘value of statistical life’ approach, mirroring actuarial accounting for fatal risks, a 1 in 100 000 risk of death might attract an extra payment of only US$96.1 Most HCS do not involve fatality risks this high, although, on pessimistic estimates, the risk of COVID-19 HCS in young healthy adults might involve similar levels of risk.11 Such risks might arguably be justified by large expected public health benefits,12,9 11 13 but it remains controversial whether higher levels of payment could …. (shrink)

We thank the authors of the five commentaries for their careful and highly constructive consideration of our paper,1 which has enabled us to develop our proposal. Participation in research has traditionally been viewed as altruistic. Over time, payments for inconvenience and lost wages have been allowed, as have small incentives, usually in kind. The problem, particularly with controlled human infection model research or ‘challenge studies’, is that they are unpleasant and time-consuming. Researchers want to offer carrots to incentivise participation. We (...) are proposing that research participation be viewed as a job with the full suite of financial entitlements of fairly remunerated work, including payment for risk and labour law protections. This would be a significant shift from current practice and standards. Ambuehl, Ockenfels and Roth have grasped this basic point and have beautifully elaborated how a fair price could be arrived at using economic theory. They build on our proposal helpfully and suggest ‘ salary for time involvement that is adjusted to account for the amount of discomfort experienced during participation, insurance against ex post adverse outcomes and ex ante compensation for risks that cannot be compensated ex post.’3 This effectively addresses Fernandez Lynch and Largent’s2 concern that compensation for risk is inappropriate for harms which do not eventuate. However, because death cannot be compensated for, there must be payment for risk of death, as Ambuehl, Ockenfels and Roth convincingly argue.3 Indeed, the three-part model suggested by Ambuehl, Ockenfels and Roth makes us realise that job model would be a better title for our model than a payment for risk model. The alternative to a properly remunerated job model is the original altruistic model. However, this …. (shrink)

Significant attention has been given both to the ethics of Controlled Human Infection Model research and the ethics of payment for research participation. However, comparatively little attention has been given to the ethics of paying for participation specifically in CHIM research. Grimwade et al should be commended for thoughtfully addressing this topic and especially for the empirical data collection informing their work, which is too often lacking in discussions of payment for research participation. In what follows I will discuss three (...) relatively subtle factors that, I believe, make a difference to the ethical analysis of paying for research participation and raise what I intend to be constructive questions about the extent to which the survey instrument employed by the authors captures them. The authors focus on payment for risk in CHIM research. They correctly stress that compensating participants for risk is controversial and that “many general guidelines warn against paying for the risk in medical research”. While not all guidance documents share this scepticism,1 compensating for risk raises thorny issues and uncertainty over the topic among IRBs and regulatory bodies is likely to hinder the practice. Part of the difficulty in assessing payment for research risks stems from the way in which subtle variances in background assumptions influence the ethical assessment, which also complicates empirical attempts to measure attitudes on the topic. Most importantly, it is crucial to be precise about background assumptions concerning whether participants are protected from bearing the financial burdens of research risks that eventuate in actual harms. Protective mechanisms …. (shrink)

When payment is offered for controlled human infection model research, ethical concerns may be heightened due to unfamiliarity with this study design as well as perceptions—and misperceptions—regarding risk. Against this backdrop, we commend Grimwade et al 1 for their careful handling of the relevant issues, coupling empirical and conceptual approaches. We agree with foundational elements of the authors’ analysis, including the acceptability of payment for research risk.1 However, in our view, it is preferable to treat payment for risk as a (...) discretionary incentive to achieve adequate recruitment and retention, rather than compensation owed as a matter of fairness. Grimwade et al 1 note that although their ‘Payment for Risk Model’ was ‘created specifically in the context of CHIM research, it has the potential to inform payment in other areas of medical research.’ We agree and would go further: we do not need a special payment framework for CHIMs because there is nothing so novel about them compared with other types of research as to demand a distinct approach. Any successful payment framework must address the following ethical issues: preserving informed consent ; treating participants fairly ; encouraging adequate recruitment and retention; avoiding deception by participants; and preserving public trust.2 Some of these issues may have particular salience in the context of CHIMs, but this study design does not demand consideration of entirely distinct ethical factors when evaluating offers of payment.2 We also agree with Grimwade et al 1 about several other key points.2 Given the burdens involved and …. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated rapid research to aid in the understanding of the disease and the development of novel therapeutics. One option is to conduct controlled human infection trials (CHITs). In this article I examine the history of deliberate human infection and CHITs and their utilization prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, key ethical considerations of CHITs in the COVID-19 setting, an analysis of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies, and (...) a review of the two COVID-19 CHITs that have already commenced, their compliance with the WHO criteria and other ethical considerations. (shrink)

Seven COVID-19 vaccines are now being distributed and administered around the world (figure correct at the time of submission), with more on the horizon. It is widely accepted that healthcare workers should have high priority. However, questions have been raised about what we ought to do if members of priority groups refuse vaccination. Using the case of influenza vaccination as a comparison, we know that coercive approaches to vaccination uptake effectively increase vaccination rates among healthcare workers and reduce patient morbidity (...) if properly implemented. Using the principle of least restrictive alternative, we have developed an intervention ladder for COVID-19 vaccination policies among healthcare workers. We argue that healthcare workers refusing vaccination without a medical reason should be temporarily redeployed and, if their refusal persists after the redeployment period, eventually suspended, in order to reduce the risk to their colleagues and patients. This ‘conditional’ policy is a compromise between entirely voluntary or entirely mandatory policies for healthcare workers, and is consistent with healthcare workers’ established professional, legal and ethical obligations to their patients and to society at large. (shrink)

One way to test vaccines is through human challenge trials in which participants are intentionally infected with a contagious organism to expedite the process of assessing the vaccine’s effectiveness. Some experts believe challenge trials may play an important role in fighting COVID-19, especially if the vaccines under current study do not demonstrate sufficient efficacy, if spread of COVID-19 is controlled to a point that radically slows down traditional trials, or if new vaccines need to be rapidly developed for specific subpopulations.1 (...) Challenge trials involve significant time, burden and risk, requiring participants to spend 3–6 weeks in legal quarantine for 24 hours a day in a high-security facility. During this time, no inperson visitors will be allowed, except for very limited inperson contact from researchers collecting necessary data and checks. Following the quarantine period, participants will be asked to attend numerous outpatient follow-up visits over the course of months, to further monitor their response to the vaccine. Participation involves being away from family who may themselves become sick during the global pandemic, as well as potential fear and mental anguish around being a ‘first’ subject. Because there is no definitive treatment for COVID-19, participants could experience serious illness. But even with milder illness, medical experts know very little about the long-term consequences of COVID-19 infection. This raises the question of how much people should be paid for their participation in COVID-19 challenge trials. Most think participants should be paid something, but many contend that we should be …. (shrink)

We largely agree with Grimwade et al ’s1 conclusion that challenge trial participants may ethically be paid, including for risk. Here, we add further arguments, clarify some points from the perspective of economics and indicate areas where economists can support the development of a framework for ethically justifiable payment. Our arguments apply to carefully constructed and monitored controlled human infection model trials that have been appropriately reviewed and approved. Participants in medical studies perform a service. Outside the domain of research (...) participation, there is nearly universal agreement that workers providing a service should be compensated fairly, and that work involving more discomfort and risk should be compensated more generously. Accordingly, labour regulations impose floors, not caps on compensation. Caps, even if intended to protect against undue inducement, also raise concerns about illegal price-fixing that disadvantages workers. Such limits on payment for egg donors have successfully been challenged in court.i Moreover, caps on compensation may harm everyone at risk of infection, not just potential participants. Insufficient compensation may impede the recruitment of enough suitable subjects, for example, when representativeness of the subject sample is required. Delays in vaccine development not only prolong disruption of social, educational and economic activity but also lead to excess infections and deaths. Unlike paid CHIM participants, individuals exposed to such infection do not accept it voluntarily, are not compensated for it, and are unlikely to receive the level of medical supervision afforded to closely monitored CHIM participants. Payment caps can lead to attempts to circumvent the regulation. For example, many countries …. (shrink)