Sacrificial Labour: Social Inequality, Identity Work, and the Damaging Pursuit of Elusive Futures

Disabled at Work: Body-Centric Cycles of Meaning-Making

A 22-month longitudinal study of (self)employed disabled workers (Following the preference of the lead author who identifies as disabled, the linguistic self-presentation by our participants, the precedent of (Hein and Ansari, Academy of Management Journal 65:749-783, 2022), and the clarification note included in Jammaers & Zanoni's recent review of ableism (Jammaers and Zanoni, Organization Studies 42:429-452, 2021), we chose, and consistently use, the term "disabled employees" throughout the paper. We do so to underscore the premise of the social model of disability, which explains that "people are disabled first and foremost by society, not by their individual, biological impairment. To us this term most clearly highlights that it is society (and possibly organizations) that disable and oppress people with impairments, by preventing their access, integration and inclusion to all walks of life, making them 'disabled'." (Jammaers and Zanoni, Organization Studies 42:429-452, 2021: 448)) models the growing centrality of the body in meaning-making. We inductively explain how body dramas of suffering or thriving initially instigate cycles of meaning deflation and inflation at work. Our disjunctive process model shows that, at the beginning of the pandemic, disabled workers performed either dramas of suffering or on dramas of thriving. However, as the global pandemic unfolded, disabled workers begun crafting composite dramas that deliberately juxtaposed thriving and suffering. This conjunctive process model stabilized meaning-making at work by acknowledging the duality of the disabled body, as both anomaly and asset. Our findings elaborate, and bridge, emerging theories of body work and recursive meaning-making to explain how disabled workers explicitly enroll their bodies to make meaning at work during periods of societal upheaval.

Ethical Criteria for Improved Human Subject Protections in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Trials

Phase I healthy volunteer trials test the safety and tolerability of investigational pharmaceuticals. In them, participants are exposed to study-drug risks without the possibility of direct medical benefit and typically must spend days or weeks in a residential research facility. Monetary payments are used to incentivize enrollment and compensate participants for their time. Together, these features of phase I healthy volunteer trials create a research context that differs markedly from most other clinical research, including by enrolling disproportionate numbers of economically disadvantaged people of color as participants. Due to these unique trial features and participation patterns, traditional biomedical research oversight offers inadequate ethical and policy guidance for phase I healthy volunteer research. This article details five ethical criteria crafted to be responsive to the particularities of this type of research: translational science value, fair opportunity and burden sharing, fair compensation for service, experiential welfare, and enhanced voice and recourse.

Material and epistemic precarity: It's time to talk about labour exploitation in mental health research

The conditions under which people labour in mental health research affect how and what knowledge is produced - and who benefits or doesn't from involvement in health research systems. There has been, however, little sustained investigation of the uneven modalities of labour exploitation across what are increasingly financialised systems of mental health research. This theoretical paper advances conceptual and empirical investigations of labour in health research - outlining how material precarity and epistemic precarity often go hand in hand, and largely drawing on examples from the UK. The intertwining of labour relations and epistemic cultures can be understood by bringing together insights from two bodies of knowledge not commonly in contact with one another - survivor/service user research and critical research on universities and academic labour. The article addresses how mental health research makes significant use of the labour of (i) contract researchers (many of whom work on precarious and exploitative contracts); (ii) lay contributors (through 'patient and public involvement'); and (iii) research participants (where the conditions underpinning participation in various kinds of research increasingly blur the distinction between volunteering, and 'gig' work). Labour relations affect, and are affected by, efforts to change epistemic cultures and reduce epistemic inequalities, and epistemic and material precarity make efforts to improve research culture much more difficult. Those experiencing both material and epistemic precarity in health research systems need to be at the heart of efforts to combat both.

Healthy volunteers in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time

BACKGROUND

Increasing the diversity of research participants is an important focus of clinical trials. However, little is known regarding who enrolls as healthy volunteers in Phase I clinical trials, which test the safety and tolerability of investigational new drugs. Despite the risk, healthy volunteers can derive no medical benefit from their participation, and they are financially compensated for enrolling.

OBJECTIVE

This study's purpose is to describe sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial participation histories of healthy people who enroll in US Phase I trials.

METHODS

The HealthyVOICES Project (HVP) is a longitudinal study of healthy individuals who have enrolled in Phase I trials. We describe self-reported sociodemographic information and Phase I trial history from HVP recruitment (May-December 2013) through the project's end three years later (December 2016). Trial experiences are presented as medians and quartiles.

RESULTS

The HVP included 178 participants. Nearly three-fourths of participants were male, and two-thirds were classified as racial and ethnic minorities. We found that some groups of participants were more likely to have completed a greater number of clinical trials over a longer timeframe than others. Those groups included participants who were male, Black, Hispanic, 30-39-years-old, unemployed, had received vocational training in a trade, or had annual household incomes of less than $25,000. Additionally, the greater the number of clinical trials participants had completed, the more likely they were to continue screening for new trials over the course of three years. Participants who pursued clinical trials as a full-time job participated in the greatest number of trials and were the most likely to continuing screening over time.

IMPLICATIONS

Participation as a healthy volunteer in US Phase I trials is driven by social inequalities. Disadvantaged groups tend to participate in a greater number of clinical trials and participate longer than more privileged groups.

Phase I trial compensation: How much do healthy volunteers actually earn from clinical trial enrollment?

Background/aims

Financial compensation for research participation is a major focus of ethical concern regarding human subject recruitment. Phase I trials are sometimes considered to be a lucrative source of income for healthy volunteers, encouraging some people to become “professional guinea pigs.” Yet, little is known about how much these clinical trials actually pay and how much healthy volunteers earn from them.

Methods

As part of a mixed-methods, longitudinal study of healthy volunteers, we required participants to complete clinical trial diaries, or surveys that captured detailed information about screening and enrollment in Phase I trials. Over a 3-year period, participants provided information online or via telephone about each clinical trial for which they screened (e.g. the clinic name, the study’s therapeutic area, the length of the trial, the number of nights spent in the clinic, and the study compensation), and whether they qualified for trial inclusion. Clinical trial diaries generated data about whether participants continued to screen for and enroll in clinical trials and how much money they earned from their participation.

Results

131 participants routinely completed clinical trial diaries or confirmed that they had not screened for any new clinical trials. Together, these participants screened for 1001 clinical trials at 73 research facilities during a 3-year period. Overall, the median clinical trial compensation was US$3070 (range = US$150–US$13,000). Participants seeking new healthy volunteer trials tended to screen for three studies per year, participate in one or two studies, and earn roughly US$4000 annually. Participants who were unemployed earned the most income from clinical trials compared to those with full-time or part-time jobs, and those individuals whom we label “occupational” participants because of their persistent pursuit of clinical trials earned more than people who screened occasionally. Notably, the median annual trial compensation was well below US$10,000 for all employment groups, and most occupational healthy volunteers also earned less than US$10,000 each year. The 10% of participants who earned the most had a median annual income of US$18,885 from clinical trials, and there was significant volatility in these individuals’ earnings from year to year.

Conclusion

Despite the perception that Phase I enrollment can generate significant earnings, it was exceedingly rare for anyone in this study to make more than US$20,000 in a single year, and unusual to earn even between US$10,000 and US$20,000. From an ethics perspective, individual trials might appear to unduly induce enrollment by offering significant sums of money, but given our findings, the larger problem for low-income participants may be the unrealistic perception that clinical trials alone could be a way of earning a living.

Speculating on Precarious Income: Finance Cultures and the Risky Strategies of Healthy Volunteers in Clinical Drug Trials

Speculation has become a normalized occupational strategy and quotidian economic rationality that extends throughout society. Although there are many contemporary articulations of speculation, this article focuses on contract labor as a domain of financialization. Seen through this lens, contract labor can be understood as a speculative investment strategy wherein individuals leverage whatever assets they have at their disposal-savings, time, bodily health-to capture economic advantages. In particular, we explore the speculative practices of healthy individuals who enroll in pharmaceutical drug trials as their primary or critical source of income. Mobilizing speculative logics to maximize the money they can earn from their clinical trial participation, these contract workers employ what we term a future-income-over-immediate-pay calculus. This speculative calculus valorizes fictional projections of significant long-term future income over present financial opportunities. For the economically precarious individuals in our study, we argue that rather than effectively increasing their income, speculation on contract work serves a compensatory function, providing an important-but ultimately inadequate-sense of control over market conditions that thrive upon workers' economic insecurity.