Man Contracts Dysentery for $7,300 in Vaccine Study

One man’s journey into the world of medical research has raised important questions about the ethics of compensating participants. Jake Eberts, motivated by both financial incentive and a desire to contribute to science, joined a study testing a vaccine for shigellosis. This study required him to be intentionally exposed to the bacteria that causes dysentery, a decision that would soon lead him to experience the illness firsthand.

Eberts responded to a unique advertisement on Reddit that featured graphics from the classic video game The Oregon Trail. The ad humorously stated, “You have died of dysentery. Help us prevent dysentery by joining this vaccine study.” Intrigued by the opportunity, Eberts enrolled in the study for a payment of $7,300. He later recounted developing dysentery “pretty aggressively,” joking that he was among the overachievers in the clinical trial cohort.

His experience compelled Eberts to advocate for healthy volunteers in medical research. In a recent episode of the “First Opinion Podcast,” he discussed the complexities of participant compensation with Jill Fisher, a professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina. Their conversation focused on the ethical considerations involved in paying people to participate in medical trials, particularly those that require exposure to harmful pathogens.

Fisher highlighted a critical issue: “A lot of these studies are really asking a lot of participants. And to think that everybody could just do it for free really undermines the system and potentially affects the diversity of clinical trial participants.” This topic is particularly relevant as the demand for clinical trial participants grows, especially for vaccine studies.

The discussion stemmed from an op-ed written by Eberts and Fisher, titled “Medical research participants deserve to be paid well.” Their argument points to the need for fair compensation for individuals who contribute to medical research, particularly when trials involve significant risks.

Institutional review boards, which oversee ethical standards in research, often remain hesitant to increase compensation rates for participants. This reluctance raises concerns about the representation and diversity of volunteers in clinical trials. The balance between ethical considerations and the necessity for participants leads to ongoing debates in the medical community.

For those interested in learning more about these discussions, the “First Opinion Podcast” is available on platforms such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Individuals can also subscribe to the First Opinion newsletter, which offers insights into medical research and volunteerism each week.

Eberts’ journey illustrates the complexities of participating in clinical trials and prompts a broader conversation about how society values the contributions of research volunteers. As the landscape of medical research continues to evolve, the dialogue around compensation and ethical practices remains crucial for the future of clinical trials.