HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Sci Technol Human Values. 2015 March 1; 40(2): 199–226. doi:10.1177/0162243914554838.

Feeding and Bleeding: The Institutional Banalization of Risk to

Healthy Volunteers in Phase I Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials
Jill A. Fisher1
1University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Abstract
Author Manuscript

Phase I clinical trials are the first stage of testing new pharmaceuticals in humans. The majority of
these studies are conducted under controlled, inpatient conditions using healthy volunteers who
are paid for their participation. This article draws on an ethnographic study of six phase I clinics in
the United States, including 268 semistructured interviews with research staff and healthy
volunteers. In it, I argue that an institutional banalization of risk structures the perceptions of
research staff and healthy volunteers participating in the studies. For research staff, there are three
mechanisms by which risk becomes banal: a perceived homogeneity of studies, Fordist work
regimes, and data-centric discourse. For healthy volunteers, repeat study participation contributes
to the institutional banalization of risk both through the process of desensitization to risk and the
formation of trust in the clinics. I argue that the institutional banalization of risk also renders
invisible ethical concerns about exploitation of underprivileged groups in pharmaceutical research.
Author Manuscript

Keywords
pharmaceuticals; clinical trials; risk; phase I; healthy volunteers

Introduction
Science and technology studies’ (STS) scholars have become increasingly interested in the
cultural politics of pharmaceuticals (e.g., Clarke et al. 2010; Dumit 2012; Greene 2007;
Lakoff 2005; Pollock 2012; Sismondo 2004). As part of this STS focus, the clinical
development of pharmaceuticals has been a central topic, with scholars examining clinical
trials from the business of conducting clinical trials (e.g., Fisher 2008; Mirowski 2011;
Petryna 2009) to researchers’ engagement with novel therapies (e.g., Hedgecoe 2004;
Author Manuscript

Keating and Cambrosio 2011) and the experiences of trial participants (e.g., Epstein 1996;
Fisher 2009b; Morris and Balmer 2006). With STS’ history of “laboratory studies” (e.g.,
Knorr-Cetina 1999; Latour and Woolgar 1979), clinical trials provide a fertile area of

© The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Corresponding Author: Jill A. Fisher, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 7240, 333 MacNider Hall, Chapel Hill, NC
27599, USA. jill.fisher@unc.edu.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
 Fisher Page 2

inquiry into the interplay of science and culture, especially given the diversity of study types
Author Manuscript

that comprise drug development.

Pharmaceuticals undergo three phases of testing on humans before they can be approved for
use in the United States and most other countries.1 Primarily enrolling healthy volunteers,
phase I clinical trials assess the safety profile of new drugs and help establish doses that are
appropriate for patients. Phase II trials are small-scale efficacy trials using patients with the
target disease to determine whether the company’s continued investment in the product is
worthwhile. Phase III trials are much larger studies in which hundreds or thousands of
affected patients are enrolled to determine whether the investigational drug is more
efficacious than a placebo or “noninferior” to a treatment already on the market. If phase III
studies indicate that a product is safe and efficacious, the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)—or other countries’ regulatory bodies—will approve it for clinical use. The FDA
also frequently requires phase IV postmarketing studies for additional safety or efficacy data
Author Manuscript

about the product after it is prescribed to patients.

This article focuses on phase I clinical trials. In lay terms, these safety studies evaluate the
negative side effects—“adverse effects”—produced in participants and at what amount of
the medication (Corrigan 2002b). This information helps pharmaceutical companies select a
therapeutic dose of their product that will not have unduly burdensome side effects. In a
classic “dose escalation” study design, for example, each cohort of eight to twelve healthy
volunteers is given a higher dose of the investigational drug until a preestablished stopping
point is reached or the severity or frequency of the adverse effects compel the investigators
to halt the study prematurely (Chapman 2011). In essence, phase I studies are designed to
produce adverse effects in at least some of the participants in each study.
Author Manuscript

Drawing upon an ethnographic study of six phase I clinics in the United States, this article
describes how the structure of phase I studies deemphasizes the risks to research
participants, resulting in what I call “the institutional banalization of risk.” Examining this
process from the perspective of both research staff and healthy volunteers, it illustrates how
—in spite of the risks to healthy volunteers—the clinical testing of investigational drugs gets
constructed as a banal activity. For research staff, this process is enabled by a perceived
homogeneity of phase I studies, a rigid Fordist production model that dictates workflow in
the clinic, and a discursive transformation of risks and harms to participants into abstract
data points. For healthy volunteers, their own patterns of participation, especially their
tendency to enroll serially in phase I trials, contribute to a desensitization to the risks and the
formation of trust in research clinics. I argue that the routinization of phase I labor—for both
the research staff and participants—renders invisible not only risk of harm to healthy
Author Manuscript

volunteers but also ethical concerns about exploitation of underprivileged groups in

pharmaceutical research.

1Pharmaceutical clinical trials are conducted throughout the world, with a concentration of clinics in North America, Western Europe,
and Asia. In spite of media and scholarly attention to clinical trials in the developing world (e.g., Petryna 2007; Shah 2006), the
United States remains the dominant site of all clinical trials worldwide (Borfitz 2011).

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 3

Conceptual Framework and Background

Author Manuscript

Within dominant research ethics frameworks, it is essential to balance the risks and benefits
to research participants, and it is one of the duties of research ethics boards to ensure that
potential risks are appropriate and justified by expected benefits (Faden and Beauchamp
1986). Like much of principle-based ethics (De Vries 2004; Fox and Swazey 1984),
however, assessments of risks and benefits are often calculated in a vacuum, with ethics
boards often carefully avoiding creating too many impediments to the research enterprise
(Fisher 2013). For example, a lack of symmetry in the distribution of risks and benefits
allows individual research participants to suffer the risks while others (locally or globally)
might enjoy the benefits (see Belmont Report 1979). Indeed, much of the history of medical
research includes egregious cases of the poor and disenfranchised being exploited (Briggs
2002; Hornblum 1998; Reverby 2009; Shah 2006).
Author Manuscript

Bringing an STS perspective to an analysis of phase I clinical trials allows for alternative
constructions of risks and benefits. Power is central to my understanding of risk. Typical
uses of the language of risk make it seem that risk is a level playing field. Risk, however, is
not a neutral appraisal of potential dangers but is instead mediated by social position. Beck
(1992) warns that in modern technological systems, there are always risk winners and risk
losers. The effects of harm are uneven with those in positions of authority careful to limit
their responsibility for reparations and those who are already disadvantaged experiencing
greater suffering. Yet, as Beck argues, the modern risk system is set up so that there are
some “countries, sectors, and enterprises which profit from the production of risk, and others
which find their economic existence threatened together with their physical well-being”
(Beck 1992, 110, italics in original). Importantly, calculations of acceptable risk are deeply
political, and as van Kammen and Oudshoorn (2002) illustrate in their analysis of
Author Manuscript

contraceptive technologies, differential degrees of risk are viewed as acceptable for some
members of society based on their gender, race/ethnicity, or socioeconomic position.
Transferring this conceptual framework to the context of phase I clinical trials, healthy
volunteers can be constructed as potential risk losers. Pharmaceutical companies will profit
from their trial participation, and any harms that occur are compounded by healthy
volunteers’ social disadvantage, especially their lack of health insurance to care for any
physical injuries or their limited resources to litigate and bring suit against a powerful
industry.

By focusing on the broader context of clinical trials, the concepts of “risks” and “benefits”
expand and contract to conform to the expectations of the researchers and participants.
Notably, as I will illustrate with the data from my ethnographic study, risk is often
Author Manuscript

disregarded or normalized—or “misrecognized” (Bourdieu 1977)—because of its

everydayness. To make sense of this process, I trace what I call an “institutional banalization
of risk” that occurs in the phase I context. By this I mean that the phase I enterprise is
organized to render the risks of participation insignificant and unproblematic. Banalization
is aided by the organizational structure of clinical trials and the pool of participants recruited
as healthy volunteers. To say that phase I clinical trials are characterized by an institutional
banalization of risk does not imply that the risks of participation are trivial. To the contrary,
it emphasizes the importance of understanding the mechanisms by which individuals come

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 4

to ignore or underestimate the risks of phase I studies. I describe these components in more
Author Manuscript

detail below, but will first ask: what are the risks to healthy volunteers of phase I trials?

Calculating the risks of phase I trials is no easy task. In addition to having different risks
associated with different classes of investigational drugs, phase I studies are diverse and
involve different types and degrees of risk. In practice, the “phase I” moniker refers to all
clinical trials that test the safety of products, measure the pharmacokinetics or
pharmacodynamics of the drug,2 or compare modes of drug administration. True phase I
clinical trials are “first-in-human” (FIH) studies, which are literally the first-time
investigational drugs are given to human subjects who are usually healthy volunteers.3 In
spite of the implied linearity in the phases of drug development, phase I studies are
conducted during the entire drug development process, even continuing to be conducted
after FDA approval, to provide additional data about the safety profile of marketed drugs
(Derendorf et al. 2000). For example, non-FIH phase I studies include those that test a drug
Author Manuscript

in single or multiple doses; investigate its cardiac, hepatic, or renal effects; measure its
interaction with other (usually marketed) drugs; and assess the effects of food on the action
of drugs. Additionally, some phase I trials are bioequivalence studies designed to prove that
generic drugs are metabolized, absorbed, and excreted in the same way as brand name drugs
(Hayden 2007) or that racially or ethnically diverse bodies similarly process the drugs (Kelly
and Nichter 2012). All of these study types are phase I trials and are conducted on healthy
volunteers.

Additionally, every type of pharmaceutical is likely to be tested in some way on healthy

volunteers, including oncology and HIV/AIDS medications, and there is no evidence to
suggest that there is less risk from the investigational drug in phase I trials enrolling healthy
volunteers compared to those enrolling patients. Trying to isolate the “signal” from the
Author Manuscript

“noise” (Lakoff 2007), pharmaceutical companies prefer healthy volunteers in phase I trials
so, that investigators do not have to adjudicate whether symptoms are a cause of the drug or
the underlying disease. In sum, myriad clinical trial designs with different associated risks
(in terms of magnitude and probability) are all part of the phase I world.

It may be difficult to assess the overall risk of participation in phase I studies, but the risks to
healthy volunteers are not merely hypothetical (Stein 2003). Participants will likely
experience one or more of the following adverse effects, depending on the type of drug
being tested and the dose given: headaches, diarrhea, constipation, dizziness, nausea,
vomiting, skin reactions, and other symptoms of this nature. More serious adverse effects
that are relatively common include allergic reactions, anemia, depression, liver problems,
impaired kidney function, seizures, and severe arrhythmias. Although death and serious
Author Manuscript

harm are not common in phase I, they have occurred. Two deaths of healthy subjects
received considerable media attention. Ellen Roche, a 24-year-old, died during an asthma-

2In lay terms, pharmacokinetics measures what the body does to a drug after it has been consumed, including how it is absorbed,
metabolized, and excreted. Pharmacodynamics measures the effects of a drug on the body.
3These studies used to be called “First-in-Man” clinical trials, but the industry has largely abandoned that term for the gender-neutral
alternative since 1993 when the Food and Drug Administration lifted its ban on the enrollment of “women of childbearing potential”
in early-phase clinical trials (Corrigan 2002a; Fisher and Ronald 2010). In spite of the change in US regulations and new terminology,
these trials are almost exclusively filled with male volunteers (Batchelor 2002).

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 5

related study at Johns Hopkins University in 2001, and Traci Johnson, a 19-year-old,
Author Manuscript

committed suicide during an antidepressant study at an Eli Lilly facility in Indianapolis in

2004. More recently in 2006, six healthy volunteers who were enrolled in a study in London
experienced near-fatal, serious illnesses when the drug caused rapid multiple organ failure
(Wood and Darbyshire 2006). In spite of—or perhaps because of—these sensational cases of
phase I trials gone awry, phase I investigators are keen to demonstrate evidence of the low
probability of harm to healthy volunteers. For example, meta-analyses of published phase I
trials consistently indicate that fewer than 1 percent of healthy volunteers experience serious
drug-related adverse effects (Kumagai et al. 2006; Sibille et al. 2006), and investigators
routinely frame participation as safer than many blue-collar professions (Kupetsky-Rincon
and Kraft 2012).

Part of the institutional banalization of phase I risk occurs because of the structure and
execution of these clinical trials. Unlike other clinical trials, phase I studies are conducted
Author Manuscript

almost exclusively with “confinement” requirements, meaning that healthy volunteers must
stay overnight in the facility during some portion of the trial. In part, the confinement
controls for as many variables as possible: researchers can dictate the exact times at which
doses occur, the food and beverages consumed, and enforce any restrictions prohibiting the
use of other medications or products. It also allows research staff to monitor participants
through scheduled procedures or informal observations. In this respect, phase I facilities
resemble a total institution (Goffman 1961), one in which the risks could appear to be
managed and controlled.

Another aspect of the institutional banalization of risk in phase I stems from the routine
labor of conducting and participating in clinical trials. In his analysis of the 2006 phase I
disaster in London mentioned previously, Hedgecoe (2014) uses the lens of organizational
Author Manuscript

deviance to explain sociologically how such serious harm could occur in spite of robust
regulation and over-sight. One of Hedgecoe’s assertions is that “the everyday culture of a
work group accommodates and normalizes risk as part of the practical effort to get work
done” (p. 66). Because dramatic or unexpected adverse events are infrequent, the more
common “side effects” of investigational drugs are seen by researchers and healthy
volunteers as being pretty mundane.

The everyday work of phase I trials structures and normalizes experiences of risk for healthy
volunteers as well. Healthy volunteers enroll in phase I studies almost exclusively for the
income they can earn (Tolich 2010).4 Payments vary dramatically, based on the geographic
location of the clinic, the length of the study, and the procedures involved, but a fair estimate
is that the average study pays between US$2,000 and 4,000. Additionally, most healthy
Author Manuscript

volunteers are serial participants in phase I clinical trials, regularly seeking income from
study participation (Weinstein 2001). As a result of this wage structure, Cooper and Waldby
(2014) argue that clinical trial participation is embodied labor, a form of work representative
of flexible postindustrial, post-Fordist economies. Seen in this light, the phase I healthy

4Of course, financial motivation is multifaceted with healthy volunteers having a variety of purposes to which their study stipends will
be put. In my forthcoming book, I describe a taxonomy of financial motivations that I group into the following categories: necessary
income, investment in the future, and mass consumption. Nonfinancial motivations, including altruism and social and lifestyle factors,
also shape participation, especially serial participation.

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 6

volunteer becomes an independent contractor participating in clinical trials for remuneration

Author Manuscript

on an occasional or routine basis. Not recognized as such by research institutions or

government agencies, how-ever, healthy volunteers are not protected as workers or entitled
to labor rights (Lemmens and Elliott 2001; Sunder Rajan 2007). In his ethnography of white
anarchist “professional guinea pigs” in Philadelphia, Abadie (2010) found that healthy
volunteers conceive of their participation as work and approach it from an activist
perspective, even advocating for unionization of participants. Healthy volunteers and
research staff both focus on what they need to do to earn their income: for volunteers, this
means enrolling in phase I trials and consuming the investigational drugs.

For the healthy volunteers, a final critical component to the institutional banalization of risk
comes from their relationship to the larger social structure. The majority of US healthy
volunteers are economically and politically disadvantaged minority men. There are regional
differences in the racial and ethnic groups, with an overrepresentation of African Americans
Author Manuscript

in phase I clinics in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest and Latinos in clinics in the
Southwest (Fisher and Kalbaugh 2011). Most healthy volunteers are unemployed, seasonally
employed, or self-employed (Motluck 2009). In some instances, trial participation is simply
seen as an easier way to earn an income because it is less demanding and more flexible, and
participation in phase I trials becomes a chosen way of life (Abadie 2010). Some serial
participants have additional difficulty finding wage employment because they have a history
of incarceration or do not have permission to seek work in the United States. Thus, in the
broader context of a disappearing social safety net, deindustrialization, gross wage
disparities, and little job security—all characteristics of structural violence (e.g., Bourgois
1995; Farmer 2004; Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 2003), the risks of phase I trials are
overshadowed by the need to earn an income. For this reason, the choices and explanatory
frameworks of healthy volunteers could add important insight into how the institutional
Author Manuscript

banalization of risk is mediated by the on-the-ground practices of those involved in phase I

research.

Methods
The study was conducted at six dedicated phase I, in-patient clinics in the United States
from November 2009 through October 2010. The clinics were selected to have as diverse a
representation of facilities as possible. For geographic coverage, two facilities were located
in the East, two in the Midwest, and two in the West. One facility was owned and operated
by a large pharmaceutical company, one was part of an academic medical center, two were
owned and operated by contract research organizations, and two were independent phase I
clinics. The facilities varied in size with the smallest being a 16-bed unit and the largest a
Author Manuscript

300-bed clinic.

In addition to observing clinic activities (from informed consent procedures to blood draws
and dosing), a total of 268 semistructured interviews were conducted with 33 clinic staff and
235 healthy volunteers. The staff occupied various roles in the six facilities including site
directors, principal investigators (MDs), recruiters, study nurses, and phlebotomists. Healthy
volunteers were predominantly male (73.2 percent). Roughly one-third were non-Hispanic
whites (37.4 percent), another third were non-Hispanic blacks (34.9 percent), and nearly

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 7

one-quarter were Hispanic (21.8 percent; see Table 1 for volunteers’ demographic
Author Manuscript

breakdown by facility). Healthy volunteers had a wide range of experience participating in

phase I trials, with about one-third being first-time participants (30.6 percent) while others
claimed to have participated in over 100 studies. Interviewees were representative of the
overall demographics of the research staff and volunteers at the time of each site visit. The
vast majority of interviews were conducted in English, but 28 were conducted in Spanish.

Interviews with research staff focused on their perceptions of phase I studies, their
experiences with different types of healthy volunteers, and changes in participation trends
over time (especially in light of the 2008 US economic downturn). Interviews with healthy
volunteers explored their experiences of participating in phase I trials, their perceptions of
risks, how they evaluate different types of studies or procedures, and how they explain their
participation in studies to others. All interviews were transcribed in full and coded using
Atlas.ti. The identities of phase I clinics and staff are confidential, and all healthy volunteers
Author Manuscript

were anonymous. The Van-derbilt University institutional review board reviewed and
approved the research protocol.

Experiences of Adverse Effects in Phase I Trials

When I arrived at one of my phase I field sites in the late summer of 2010, a receptionist
ushered me to a small waiting area in the Spartan administration suite of the clinic. She told
me that the medical director had been delayed by some medical issues that occurred in a
current study. I was not there long when a woman who was seated in a nearby cubical
offered me some tea or coffee. After I declined, she picked up her cell phone and made a
call. Without any small talk, she launched into a frantic description of the hallucinations and
nightmares that the healthy volunteers had nearly unanimously experienced after being
Author Manuscript

dosed with the study drug that morning. It slowly dawned on me that the woman did not
actually work at the clinic; she was a representative from the pharmaceutical company
sponsoring the study.

Later when I met the medical director, he confirmed that the woman had come to observe
the dosing because the clinic had previously reported these same adverse effects to the
sponsor with earlier cohorts and the company wanted one of their own employees to witness
the effects of the investigational drug. I asked him about the drug effects, and he told me that
the vast majority of healthy volunteers had experienced sleep paralysis—an often
frightening conscious state where one experiences vivid hallucinations and cannot move or
speak—as a result of the study drug. He wondered out loud if the sponsor would continue
development of the product or would decide the adverse effects were too serious to warrant
further investment. He also confided that many of the volunteers needed to be reassured that
Author Manuscript

these side effects of the drug would be short term.

My own interactions with the group of healthy volunteers in this study were shaped by the
phase I trial. Instead of moving about the clinic, they stayed in their beds most of the day,
many feeling that they could not quite shake the soporific effects of the drug. Most were
nonetheless eager to be interviewed and wanted to talk about their side effects. One
participant in the study was an African American woman in her early twenties and a mother

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 8

of two young children. It was her first time participating in a study, and she was in the clinic
Author Manuscript

with her father, a veteran healthy volunteer in his forties who had encouraged her to enroll in
a study. During the interview, I asked her whether she had experienced any side effects.
After yawning noisily, she said,

Yeah, but the only thing really was sort of a hallucination. I had a vivid, I had a
really crazy dream, but that was it. I dreamed that they were sticking IVs in my
cheeks, and that was a side effect [of the drug], vivid dreams. They was sticking
IVs in my cheeks and my dad was actually coming to do it. I was like, “Dad, you’re
not sticking no IV in my cheek. You better send me home.”

Now more fully awake, she was not that concerned about having had an adverse effect
because her father’s experiences in studies reassured her. She explained, “I have a lot of
faith in my dad. He’s been doing this for however many years he’s been doing it, and he
took a study before and it has to be okay.”
Author Manuscript

Given the low probability of dramatic adverse effects in phase I studies, it is surprising that I
was present at a clinic when healthy volunteers would experience something as unusual as
sleep paralysis. Typically, I heard about adverse effects through interviews with research
staff and healthy volunteers. The latter often laughed about the side effects as they recalled
their experiences, and the men seemed especially prone to exaggerate the stories to make
them more comical or frightening. For example, a white man in his late fifties who had
participated in more than ten studies wanted to share his “study stories” with me. In one
Alzheimer’s disease phase I trial, he and other participants suffered so much vertigo and
vomiting during the study that the clinic got permission from the sponsor to give the
participants Benadryl® to minimize the vomiting at subsequent doses. He remembered,

It was the first study I’ve been in where there was a lot of sickness … I mean it was
Author Manuscript

a pretty strong, strong dose … It was rough. We dosed 26 [people] and 18 got sick
… It was not a good experience … That’s really the only time I’ve actually seen
physical illness. I’m not privy to other side effects [i.e., those detected through
laboratory results], but that was an experience. Yeah, it was [laughs], “You guys
better go back to the lab and rethink that one.”

Most healthy volunteers’ adverse effects are short term. The effects tend to occur shortly
after being dosed with the investigational drug; then within hours of consuming it, the
symptoms subside. In a few instances, however, the effects lasted beyond the study, and
participants reported that they were surprised to find that they were nonetheless released
from the phase I clinic and not monitored by the research team. One such example came
from an African American participant in her early thirties who had participated in more than
Author Manuscript

thirty-five studies. She had several experiences of worrisome adverse effects, but a Ritalin®
study made her change her perceptions of the risks of drugs that act on the brain. She
reported, “I was administered 500 times the regular dosage of Ritalin, and it was crazy.
[Laughs] And I felt the after-effects for several days, although they released me the same
day.” When I asked her how she felt during the study, she responded,
I felt like I wasn’t in control of anything. My emotions were up and down. I felt
like I tooksome kind of street drug because I was speeding everywhere and then I

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 9

was so slowed down. I felt sad. I was crying uncontrollably. I was yelling.
Author Manuscript

Someone being around me would think that I had Tourette’s syndrome because it
was just coming out of my face and I couldn’t stop it. And I was emotional. I was
pensive. I wanted to think about everything. I wanted to analyze everyone and
everything. I was angry because I felt like everybody was laughing at me and
judging me. Then I became sexual in this environment, it was bad. Really bad.
Really bad. And it was embarrassing … When they let me go home, I told them I
didn’t wanna leave. I didn’t feel right … My mom was nervous when I got home. I
couldn’t sleep. I couldn’t sit down. I just needed her to stay on the phone. I begged
her not to hang up, and she was so scared, like, “You don’t ever do anything like
that again because I don’t know what’s wrong with you and you’re acting really
strange,” and I felt strange.

Remarkably, many healthy volunteers will continue to participate in phase I studies even
Author Manuscript

after they experience temporary adverse effects. The return to health or normalcy perhaps
gives them the sense that no serious lasting harms can come from participating in clinical
trials. Turning to a structural explanation for this phenomenon, the institutional banalization
of risk shapes volunteers’ perceptions and expectations of phase I trials beyond their
individual experiences.

Research Staff and Risk in Phase I Clinics

Based on my observations of phase I clinics and the information I gleaned from interviews,
research staff are generally caring and committed to the safety and comfort of healthy
volunteers.5 At the same time, moments of what could be read as staff callousness rose to
the surface when healthy volunteers were less willing to enroll in studies with nearly certain
adverse effects. During my fieldwork, one such study had a high probability that participants
Author Manuscript

would experience several hours of flu-like symptoms after dosing, and the clinic staff were
frustrated with the high rates of attrition when participants would exercise their right to
withdraw from the study. This occurred in the middle of the study that required multiple
confinement periods during which participants would be dosed each time with the
investigational drug. The clinic found that many participants who had experiencedfever,
chills, and nausea in the first confinement period either officially withdrew or failed to
check-in for subsequent confinements. In another instance, a clinic was a victim of its own
success at informing prospective participants about a dose-escalation study in which higher
doses of the investigational drug led to larger numbers of healthy volunteers vomiting during
the study. The recruiter informed participants so well during the screening visit that only
five of the eight participants checked-in the morning of the study. When two of those
participants did not pass all the intake laboratory work and had to be dropped from the
Author Manuscript

study, the sponsor decided to postpone the study and requested that the clinic send the
participants home. After dismissing the healthy volunteers (and promising to pay them US
$200 because they showed up in “good faith” to complete the study), the nurse manager

5Some phase I clinics not included directly in my sample have a reputation for hiring unprofessional staff that do not treat healthy
volunteers as well. Because serial participants frequent many clinics, it allowed me “indirect access” to clinics that had refused my
request for a visit (see Monahan and Fisher forthcoming, on the method of indirect access). It is notable that the clinics that had the
worse reputation among healthy volunteers were the most likely to deny my request to be included in the study.

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 10

walked the hallways of the clinic fuming about the cancelled study. I asked her whether the
Author Manuscript

participants who had not shown up that morning had called in or simply not turned up. With
clear irritation in her voice, she said that most of them called with pretty transparent excuses
but that ultimately they failed to come in because “they didn’t want to barf.” The nurse
manager (at least at that moment) was not sympathetic to the fact that the negative effects of
the drug would dissuade healthy volunteers from participating.

Analytically, I interpret reactions like the nurse manger’s as stemming from the institutional
banalization of risk that occurs in the phase I context. Research staff members are especially
prone to minimize or discount the risks of study participation because they perceive that
risks are not only managed but also controlled or eliminated. Within this framework, likely
adverse effects cease to be true “risks” and are not seen as indicators that participants’ long-
term health could be jeopardized by their participation in phase I trials. What is particularly
interesting here is that in their interactions with healthy volunteers, the staff is not
Author Manuscript

downplaying the possibility of adverse effects per se. Indeed, my observations of the
informed consent processes that occur for phase I studies suggest that staff prepare healthy
volunteers well for those side effects when they are an expected part of the study. At the
same time, longer-term risks are all but ignored or dismissed. For example, when death is
listed as a risk on an informed consent document, it is chalked up to a legal requirement and
often dismissed because those staff members have never witnessed it occur. In examining
the work practices of research staff, three primary components contribute to the banalization
of risk process: (1) the perceived homogeneity of phase I clinical trial design, (2) the
institutionalization of Fordist production processes, and (3) the discursive transformation of
risks and harms into abstract data points.

Perceived Homogeneity of Phase I Clinical Trial Design

Author Manuscript

Phase I clinical trials, as described previously, are designed to answer different research
questions about the safety and/or administration of pharmaceuticals. On the surface then, it
might appear contradictory to depict phase I studies as having homogenous research designs.
Yet, when examined from the perspective of the regimen of what tests and procedures need
to be performed and at what intervals, clear patterns of study conduct emerge regardless of
the scientific goals of specific studies. Key events in most protocols are drug dosing, blood
and urine collection, electrocardiograms (EKGs), physical examinations, and meals. For
example, a white female physician at a phase I unit told me, “Actually the protocols are
fairly uniform. There are like three, four, five kinds of master protocols in a sense. And an
FIH-single dose repeat is an FIH-single dose repeat.” Adding to the impression of
homogeneity, clinics have standardized screening procedures to verify that prospective
volunteers qualify for studies, and only rare additions based on unusual inclusion or
Author Manuscript

exclusion criteria would create deviations in the procedures or workflow.

Phase I protocols are so similar that there is often a sense among research staff that the
investigational drugs are interchangeable when it comes to their daily responsibilities. When
speaking with one white male staff member who was responsible for setting up the protocol
in an electronic data capture system used by the clinic, it was clear that the similarities

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 11

between studies could trigger programming errors because the differences among protocols
Author Manuscript

are hard to notice:

Even if it looks the same, you have the same type of blood draws, same thing every
time, it’s not [exactly] the same. Even though you compare your T&E’s, [that is]
your time and event schedules, and they look identical … Well, every time I read a
protocol to break it down to [the software application], … I’ll walk out, take a walk
around the building real quick, just kinda clear my head, come back and start the
new protocol with a fresh start.
Most research staff members, however, are not responsible for noting minor differences
among protocols, and as a result, they make few attempts (and have no incentives) to
differentiate between studies. Instead, they focus on following their daily schedules that
dictate the clinical tasks for which they are responsible, such as administering doses or
drawing blood (note that the schedule is, of course, generated by the electronic systems in
Author Manuscript

which the protocols are inputted).

The perceived homogeneity of phase I trials is the primary factor underlying the industry
reference to these studies as well as to many of the clinics that conduct them as “feed ‘em-
and-bleed’ ems.” The label emphasizes the two activities that structure most days in the
clinics. The first is the task of feeding participants three meals per day according to the
protocols, with fairly standardized diets based on calories, fat, or other restrictions. The
second is the monitoring of participants by collecting and analyzing their blood at frequent
intervals. Blood is the principle source of safety data because it contains information about
the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the investigational drug. Colloquially, research staff (and
subsequently healthy volunteers) refer to days in which the participants receive a dose of a
drug followed by hourly blood draws as “PK days” to signal the large volume of blood
Author Manuscript

collection. One white physician referred to clinical trials that are designed primarily to
generate pharmacokinetic data as the “bread and butter” of the industry. He explained, “I
call them bread and butter because to a guy like me, we do them, but I can’t say I’m hugely
interested on a scientific level.” In other words, references to “feeding and bleeding” and PK
studies within the industry emphasizes the mundane nature of phase I work.

As these examples indicate, there are few exceptions that radically differentiate phase I
protocols. Additionally, not all clinics have the capability or expertise to conduct protocols
that include more invasive procedures such as lumbar punctures or endoscopy. Using the
industry argot, a white administrator from a small commercial phase I unit compared his
facility to academic sites and some of the larger ones in the industry by saying, “They have
esoteric testing or procedures that most ’feed ‘em-and-bleed’ ems’ [like us] don’t.” Even
Author Manuscript

when sites have access to advanced technologies and specialist practitioners, few phase I
protocols call for those resources. A white male physician at an academic unit with high-
tech capabilities explained, “We’re not a huge ’feed ‘em-and-bleed’ em’ … [but even so]
we’ll do sort of basic studies.” In other words, the feeding and bleeding always predominate.
Without the occasional lumbar puncture or endoscopy tube, it is easy to understand how
studies begin to blur.

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 12

Institutionalization of Fordist Production Processes

Author Manuscript

Additionally, the institutional banalization of risk may be augmented through the clinics’
“Fordist” labor processes. Phase I studies require a high level of efficiency of and
cooperation among research staff because the schedule of clinical events is highly structured
with narrow windows of time in which doses must be given, blood collected, EKGs
administered, food consumed, and so on. If research staff miss any of these windows
because, for example, they fall behind on work or a participant fails to be in the right place
at the right time, staff must document the “protocol deviation” and report the occurrence to
the sponsor. To avoid this problem, clinics mobilize a Fordist production model, with an
assembly line approach to workflow and clinic design, to try to ensure that the studies run
smoothly and efficiently (Fisher 2009a).

Every stage of the research process is designed for throughput. Facilities are specifically
Author Manuscript

designed to usher prospective volunteers rapidly through the screening process. Unlike later
phase clinical trials, prospective healthy volunteers are often scheduled to screen for studies
in groups of ten, twenty, or more. Even the informed consent process is designed for
maximum efficiency with most clinics providing information about the studies in group
settings during which a research staff member reads parts of the informed consent form to
prospective volunteers and answers any questions that they might have about the study.
After consent forms are signed, the prospective volunteers then queue up to have their height
and weight recorded, vitals checked, blood drawn, and urine sampled as part of the formal
screening for studies. Prospective volunteers move through the screening clinic quickly
because research staff members are assigned to each station (like workers on an assembly
line) to collect the necessary data or bodily fluids. As prospective volunteers finish
procedures at the last screening station, they will often find themselves back in the facility’s
reception room.
Author Manuscript

Unlike the screening area, the rest of the phase I facility cannot be designed solely for
maximum throughput of participants. Not only does the facility contain clinical spaces and
administrative offices, it must also include shared sleeping quarters for participants, areas
for recreation, dining, and bathing, as well as laundry facilities and other dormitory-like
features. In spite of the diversity of activities the facilities must accommodate, all six clinics
in my study nonetheless incorporated rigorous Fordist processes to facilitate study conduct.
One key feature at five of the clinics was a procedure area designed for participants to be
processed en masse.6 The procedure areas were spaces in which chairs were lined up in
rows or circles so that staff could quickly collect samples or conduct procedures. In some
cases, volunteers were even assigned specific chairs (usually by their study ID) to avoid
confusion about who was due for a procedure, and staff could draw blood from participants
Author Manuscript

by literally moving down the line from one to the next. Additionally, procedures are
semiautomated at many clinics by the barcoding of participants, who are scanned in and out
of procedures so that the timing of these events are precisely captured.

6The sixth facility, which was the smallest clinic, did not have a procedure area. Instead, the participants were asked to remain in bed
when it was time for procedures, so research staff could come to them at designated times.

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 13

The Fordist organizational processes are intended to facilitate the efficient functioning of the
Author Manuscript

phase I clinic. At the same time, however, they also lend the appearance that these processes
are controlling the risk to healthy volunteers. On one hand, volunteers’ risk could be
managed by the high degree of scheduled interactions with staff and by spaces that allow
staff not only to conduct procedures efficiently but also to monitor volunteers easily. If a
participant’s health or safety were seriously compromised by an investigational drug, the
staff would likely observe the problem immediately and take corrective action to safeguard
the participant. On the other hand, the workflow and space of the clinic do not alter the
inherent risks of study participation. Instead, the staff’s focused attention on the minute-by-
minute scheduling and administration of procedures as well as their management of
participants routinizes their work and diverts their attention away from the differential risks
to volunteers of consuming investigational drugs.

Discursive Transformation of Risks into Data

Author Manuscript

Risk is not only pushed to the background by the quotidian concerns that occupy the
research staff’s time and energy. Actual harms to participants are also normalized when
transforming them into abstract data points that must be gathered through the clinical trial
process. This transformation is primarily discursive, manifesting in how staff talk about and
label problems that occur during the course of studies. The primary example of this can be
witnessed in how staff view adverse effects, which are simply referred to as “AEs.” Rather
than seeing adverse effects as harms resulting from investigational drugs, research staff
members perceive AEs to be routine and rather mundane: headaches, gastrointestinal
changes, drowsiness, and so on. Not only do AEs usually fail to be spectacular, they are
generally short term as well, adding to research staff’s impression that they are simply banal
reactions that must be recorded and reported for any volunteers who experience them.
Author Manuscript

Even if these routine AEs are expected and temporary, the erasure of harm to healthy
volunteers is striking. Clinics take healthy individuals with no symptoms, give them an
investigational drug, and produce symptoms in those individuals as data, but harm remains
absent from the discussion. Considering this from the perspective of how harm is socially
constructed, it is clear that for the clinics, “harm” applies only to extreme drug reactions. In
other words, by framing symptoms that participants develop as “AEs,” research staff are
contributing to a banalization of risk through a data-centric discourse.

Language is important for structuring perception. Not only does the term adverse event
transform the experiences of participants into mere data points but also the abbreviated
“AE” masks the harm because “adverse” is no longer even articulated. Other terms in the
industry also minimize staff’s perceptions of the risks of phase I trials. Returning to the
Author Manuscript

expression “feed ‘em-and-bleed’ ems” used to describe the clinics as well as the studies, it is
noteworthy that a critical word is absent from this phrase. Without administering the
investigational drug, staff would have little reason to feed participants or collect blood from
them. The more appropriate term might be “dose ‘em-and-bleed’ em,” especially for those
PK days when following the dose, volunteers could expect frequent blood draws. Obviously,
what makes the industry’s term work is its cadence and rhyme, but it also obscures the
intentional production of harms and represents the clinic as almost risk free.

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 14

Healthy Volunteers and Phase I Study Risk

Author Manuscript

Although it might not be a surprise that research staff do not focus on the risks of phase I
participation as they engage in their daily work, it is more difficult to imagine how healthy
volunteers who are subjected to that risk express little concern about being harmed. The
exceptions to this were a handful of first-time participants I interviewed who were
preoccupied with the possibility that unexpected serious injuries would result from the
study. Healthy volunteers who are new to phase I clinical trials are rare,7 but even among
that small group, this was a minority view. The framework of the institutional banalization
of risk provides insights into healthy volunteers’ perceptions as well, especially in the
context of serial participation. My ethnographic and interview data indicate that the
institutional banalization of risk manifests in two ways for healthy volunteers: (1)
desensitization to the risks and (2) trust in research clinics.
Author Manuscript

Desensitization to Phase I Risks

As with the repetition of many other activities in life, serial participation in phase I studies
leads to a desensitization to the risk, and the vast majority of healthy volunteers are rather
cavalier about the risks of participating. In reflecting on the risks of phase I trials, healthy
volunteers rely on past experiences. For example, when I asked an Asian immigrant in his
early forties about his perception of the risk of participating in clinical trials, he replied,
“The reason why I don’t too much think about the risk [is] because I’ve done it so many
times. If something was supposed to happen to me, it would have done happened already.”
Similarly, a Latina participant in her thirties told me, “I start … in 2001 with one pill, and
nothing happened … and I see nothing happened and I continue to [participate] and I have
[done] like five studies.”
Author Manuscript

Some healthy volunteers acknowledge that when they first started participating, they had
concerns about the risks. For example, an African American in his late thirties participating
in his eighth study told me that he was nervous during his first study. When I asked him
what made him nervous, he explained,

’Cause there was a consent form, and they gave you all the side effects that could
happen and the most serious side effects was death. I was like, oh my God! You
know I was freaking out, but my friend assured me, “No, it’s nothing. They have to
say that ’cause it’s all procedural.” I was like, “Yeah, but they said death, brother!
Like did you understand that? This is serious; anything can happen. I might have an
adverse effect nobody else had. You know they tested it in lab rats, but we’re the
first humans to test this drug.” And I was like wow. But I did it, and everything
worked out … [laughs] I’m still here.
Author Manuscript

Often any anxiety first-time participants experience melts away once they get through their
first study. Emphasizing this point, a Latino man in his twenties said, “The first time I have
a little bit worry because I never did one before, but now nothing to worry about it, I think

7My sample had a slightly larger representation of first-time participants than expected. This was in large part due to one facility that
had shortly before my visit successfully launched a campaign to increase the number of healthy volunteers in their database (see Table
1).

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 15

[it’s] safe. [laughs] I feel safe.” Other participants, even those enrolled in their first study,
Author Manuscript

seem unconcerned about the risks. For instance, a Native American woman in her thirties
who was a first-time participant admitted, “I guess I’m just kind of naïve to the fact that it
would happen, just because I feel like I’m pretty healthy and I guess I’m just not really
considering the possibilities that could happen.”

The desensitization to risk is possible because many healthy volunteers will participate in
studies with no or only very minor side effects from the investigational drug. For example, a
white male in his midfifties explained, “I don’t think there’s anything personally dangerous
about it. I’ve never seen anybody [pauses]; some people may have side effects of nausea.
Usually, the only side effect I ever have is sleepiness. And that’s about it.” Likewise, an
African American man in his midforties was dismissive when I asked him about the risks of
participation. He said, “I never had experienced too many adverse events in four years. I’ve
experienced like two … I don’t feel nothing; I feel just the way when I came in. I’m going
Author Manuscript

home tomorrow. I have no headache, I’m not dizzy, I’m walking straight, and my teeth
didn’t fall out yet.” Another first-time participant—an African American man his early
forties—also made light of the side effects:

And the dosage was so minimal! I’m like, I already know I can get more side
effects from a shot of Patrón [tequila] than I can get from what I just took on this
study. [laughs] I think I’ve had more party days in college dorms worse than I’ve
had from this pill they just gave me … I know I have perfect health, and I’m in
control of me, so I can’t let that [the possible risks] scare me off, you know?

Healthy volunteers, like the staff, also perceive some degree of homogeneity among studies.
They talk about the similarities in the risks that are listed in informed consent forms. For
example, a white man in his thirties explained, “I feel like I’ve been to so many [that] it’s
Author Manuscript

just like the same consent everything, every time. So they just tell you the same thing, just
different medications … but the rest of it’s all the same.” Importantly, the combination of
reading the same list of side effects without experiencing any of them further desensitizes
them to the risks. In the words of a white man in his thirties,

I look at side effects a little, and like I’ve seen the same side effects on every one of
the studies I’ve done, but I personally haven’t had a lot of side effects from it. Like
the first couple I did, I got like the rashes they showed [in the consent form], but I
don’t remember anything going wrong in the last couple that I’ve done. So it’s been
all good.

Volunteers’ Trust in Research Clinics

Author Manuscript

Contributing to an institutional banalization of risk is serial participants’ trust that the

general research oversight system and specific phase I clinics can protect them from harm.
Some of this trust manifests in a generic way, such as in the following articulation made by
a white transwoman in her forties, “Here I feel very safe. You know, I don’t feel my health’s
gonna be compromised in any way.” In other cases, volunteers trust the high level of
monitoring, perceiving their risk is minimized. A Latino in his forties stated, “I mean, they
are always monitoring us. I mean, it’s not like they are going to give us something that we
can’t handle and we are going to die. [O sea, siempre nos están monitoreando. O sea, no nos

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 16

van a dar algo para que nosotros no aguantemos y nos vamos a morir.]” Another healthy
Author Manuscript

volunteer—an Asian immigrant in his fifties—pointed to both research oversight and clinic
procedures as protection for participants:

I’m kind of trusting in that they have to adhere to the IRB, whatever it is, you
know. So, I kind of have faith in the process they’re doing, and whatever they
catch, whenever they catch something. I know that it’s part of protocol to let it be
known to everybody, like immediately, you know what I mean? So, if something
happens to a prior group … a side effect, they’ll round everybody up … So, I kind
of go in with a sense of security that everybody’s doing what they’re supposed to
do.

In other words, even when healthy volunteers acknowledge the possibility for harm, they
indicate that such risks are mitigated by the clinics, their staff, and research ethics boards.
Author Manuscript

Saying that healthy volunteers are both trusting and desensitized to the risks of phase I trial
participation is not the same as saying that they are indiscriminate about the studies in which
they will participate. Some serial participants will not participate in studies at clinics that
have a reputation for having unprofessional staff or dangerous facilities. Some also become
savvy about phase I trial design and actively manage their study participation in ways that
they perceive as reducing their risk of harm. For example, many healthy volunteers will not
participate in studies that require invasive procedures such as lumbar punctures, whereas
others are concerned about the type or dose of investigational drug. Many of the African
American volunteers in my sample claimed that they would refuse to participate in studies
for AIDS or psychotropic medications.

In part, volunteers’ selectivity is based on their perceptions of those procedures, drugs, or

Author Manuscript

illnesses, but it can also be based on their own negative experiences in clinical trials. For
example, some of the healthy volunteers who avoided psychotropic drugs did so because
they had participated in schizophrenia studies that resulted in many side effects, including
frequent nightmares. What is interesting is that even when serial participants experience side
effects, they are likely to see those specific studies as exceptions and become even more
desensitized to risk. For example, a white man in his late thirties explained that his
perception of the risk is based on how long the side effects last, pointing to his current study
as an example: “The side effects [in this study] hit me really hard. I looked like death
warmed over, and so I spent most of the day curled up in a ball, waiting for the day to go by
… but you know, I know that by this time tomorrow, I will be right as rain.”

Ultimately, however, the primary concern about phase I clinical trials that serial participants
wanted to discuss in interviews was the risk of failing to qualify for a study when they
Author Manuscript

wanted (or felt they needed) to participate. As they come to rely on phase I participation for
income, they focus on getting into the next study instead of thinking about the risks. For
example, an African American man in his forties explained that he refused to participate in
vaccine trials, not because of the risk of the vaccine, but because of its effects on his future
participation: “Now a pill, you can’t catch nothing with a pill. When they inject you with
something, they [are] telling you they [are] giving you something … With like a vaccine or
something, then you [are] shut down for quite a few months, so you actually losing money.”

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 17

Delving further into how healthy volunteers discuss the risk of exclusion from participation
Author Manuscript

is more complex a topic than can be covered here, but it indicates that the direct physical
risks of participation are not healthy volunteers’ primary concern.

Conclusion
The management and communication of risk are considered key features of the ethics of
human subjects research, yet risk is framed in that realm as objective and measurable instead
of as deeply contextual and contested. This article has examined how the risk of
participation in phase I clinical trials becomes banal for research staff and healthy
volunteers. Through organizational and discursive practices, research staff perceive the risks
of phase I studies as minimal, and healthy volunteers experience a desensitization to the
risks and formation of trust in the clinics as they enroll in new studies without incident of
harm in previous studies. These findings illustrate in large part how risk gets constructed
Author Manuscript

(and reconstructed) in particular ways that are divorced from conversations outside the
clinics by academics and research ethics boards about the ethics of early-phase drug studies.

Risk begins to disappear for research staff as they engage in a process of naturalizing the
particular (efficient) mode of knowledge production in phase I trials. I compared the
organizational practices to Fordist production processes. When revisiting that analogy from
the perspective of ethics and risk, however, some differences between traditional production
lines and the workflow of the phase I unit become stark. In the factory, the workers are at
risk for unintentional harm or injury through repetitive stress or strain or as a result of the
machinery itself. In contrast, the risk of harm or injury in phase I studies is to the healthy
volunteers and stems from intentional exposure to an investigational drug. Within
discussions of the ethics of phase I research, this element of producing side effects—even if
Author Manuscript

only temporary—in otherwise healthy individuals is overshadowed by debates about how

much it is appropriate to pay volunteers (e.g., Dunn and Gordon 2005; Largent et al. 2012;
Stones and McMillan 2010).

The serial participation of savvy healthy volunteers in clinical trials creates a different
structure and engagement with the putative risks and benefits of enrolling in phase I studies.
Payment, of course, is central to why healthy volunteers consent to phase I studies,
representing the serious issue of how clinical trial participation both exploits and reproduces
social inequalities in US society (Fisher 2009b). Perceptions of risk are nonetheless
important because healthy volunteers are engaged in risk assessments that consider the risks
of study enrollment in relation to the economic need that motivates their interest in clinical
trials. When the risks of participation are effectively erased by healthy volunteers through
the process of desensitization, their personal assessment of risk benefit is skewed toward
Author Manuscript

trial participation because they perceive it as safer than it actually is. This echoes Cerulo’s
(2006) findings of a widespread cultural valorization of bestcase scenarios instead of
attention to or planning for the disasters that can and do occur. An STS analysis of the
institutional processes that trivialize phase I risk indicates that the informed consent process
is always already flawed for serial participants in ways that the ethics literature has not
considered. It should trigger a profound ethical concern that research staff and healthy
volunteers routinely construct phase I clinical trial participation as low risk when it will be

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 18

the healthy volunteers—due to their social disadvantage—who will be the “risk losers”
Author Manuscript

should long-term harm result.

Acknowledgments
I am grateful for the assistance of Dulce Medina and Irma Beatriz Vega de Luna in conducting interviews with
Spanish-speaking healthy volunteers.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article: This research was supported by grant number 1R21CA131880 from the National Cancer Institute. Its
contents are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National
Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Author Biography
Author Manuscript

Jill A. Fisher is an Assistant Professor of Social Medicine in the Center for Bioethics at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is the author of Medical Research for Hire:
The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials (Rutgers University Press, 2009)
and editor of Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary
Science and Medicine (Rutgers University Press, 2011).

References
Abadie, R. The Professional Guinea Pig: Big Pharma and the Risky World of Human Subjects. Duke
University Press; Durham, NC: 2010.
Batchelor, S. [Accessed October 1, 2014] Feds May Track Sex Differences in Drug Reactions.
Women’s eNews. Sep 15. 2002 http://womensenews.org/story/medicine/020915/feds-may-track-
sex-differences-in-drug-reactionshttp://womensenews.org/story/medicine/020915/feds-may-track-
Author Manuscript

sex-differences-in-drug-reactions
Beck U. From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and
Ecological Enlightenment. Theory, Culture & Society. 1992; 9(1):97–123.
[Accessed April 7, 2012] Belmont Report. 1979. http://ohsr.Od.Nih.Gov/guidelines/
belmont.Htmlhttp://ohsr.Od.Nih.Gov/guidelines/belmont.Html
Borfitz D. Canada Scrambles to Reboot Sagging Clinical Trials Market. CenterWatch Monthly. 2011;
18(12):1, 10–14.
Bourdieu, P. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Nice, R., editor. Cambridge University Press;
Cambridge, MA: 1977.
Bourgois, P. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Cambridge University Press;
Cambridge, UK: 1995.
Briggs, L. Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico. University
of California Press; Berkeley: 2002.
Cerulo, KA. Never Saw it Coming: Cultural Challenges to Envisioning the Worst. University of
Chicago Press; Chicago: 2006.
Author Manuscript

Chapman AR. Addressing the Ethical Challenges of First-in-Human Trials. Journal of Clinical
Research and Bioethics. 2011; 2(4):113.
Clarke, AE.; Mamo, L.; Fosket, J.; Fishman, J.; Shim, J. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, Health,
and Illness in the U.S. Duke University Press; Durham, NC: 2010.
Cooper, M.; Waldby, C. Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global
Bioeconomy. Duke University Press; Durham, NC: 2014.
Corrigan OP. First in Man: The Politics and Ethics of Women in Clinical Drug Trials. Feminist
Review. 2002a; 72(1):40–52.

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 19

Corrigan OP. A Risky Business: The Detection of Adverse Drug Reactions in Clinical Trials and Post-
marketing Exercises. Social Science and Medicine. 2002b; 55(3):497–507. [PubMed: 12144155]
Author Manuscript

Derendorf H, Lesko LJ, Chaikin P, Colburn WA, Lee P, Miller R, Powell R, Rhodes G, Stanski D,
Venitz J. Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling in Drug Research and Development. The
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2000; 40(12):1399–418.
De Vries RG. How Can We Help? From Sociology in to Sociology of Bioethics. Journal of Law,
Medicine, & Ethics. 2004; 32(2):279–92.
Dumit, J. Drugs for Life: How Pharmaceutical Companies Define our Health. Duke University Press;
Durham, NC: 2012.
Dunn LB, Gordon NE. Improving Informed Consent and Enhancing Recruitment for Research by
Understanding Economic Behavior. JAMA. 2005; 293(5):609–12. [PubMed: 15687316]
Epstein, S. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. University of California
Press; Berkeley: 1996.
Faden, RR.; Beauchamp, TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press;
New York: 1986.
Farmer P. An Anthropology of Structural Violence. Current Anthropology. 2004; 45(3):305–25.
Author Manuscript

Fisher JA. Practicing Research Ethics: Private-sector Physicians & Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials.
Social Science & Medicine. 2008; 66(12):2495–505. [PubMed: 18353515]
Fisher, JA. Society for Social Studies of Science (4S). Washington, DC: Oct 28-31. 2009a Bleeding
and Feeding: Unpacking the Banality of Healthy Human Testing of Investigational
Pharmaceuticals. 2009
Fisher, JA. Medical Research for Hire: The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials.
Rutgers University Press; New Brunswick, NJ: 2009b.
Fisher JA. Expanding the Frame of Voluntariness in Informed Consent: Structural Coercion and the
Power of Social and Economic Context. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2013; 23(4):355–79.
[PubMed: 24552076]
Fisher JA, Kalbaugh CA. Challenging Assumptions about Minority Participation in U.S. Clinical
Research. American Journal of Public Health. 2011; 101(12):2217–22. [PubMed: 22021285]
Fisher JA, Ronald LM. Sex, Gender, and Pharmaceutical Politics: From Drug Development to
Marketing. Gender Medicine. 2010; 7(4):357–70. [PubMed: 20869636]
Author Manuscript

Fox RC, Swazey JP. Medical Morality is Not Bioethics—Medical Ethics in China and the United
States. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 1984; 27(3):336. [PubMed: 6728631]
Goffman, E. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Anchor
Books; New York: 1961.
Greene, JA. Prescribing by Numbers: Drugs and the Definition of Disease. Johns Hopkins University
Press; Baltimore, MD: 2007.
Hayden C. A Generic Solution? Pharmaceuticals and the Politics of the Similar in Mexico. Current
Anthropology. 2007; 48(4):475–95.
Hedgecoe, A. The Politics of Personalized Medicine: Pharmacogenetics in the Clinic. Cambridge
University Press; New York: 2004.
Hedgecoe A. A Deviation from Standard Design? Clinical Trials, Research Ethics Committees, and the
Regulatory Co-construction of Organizational Deviance. Social Studies of Science. 2014; 44(1):
59–81.
Hornblum, AM. Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison. Routledge; New York:
Author Manuscript

1998.
Keating, P.; Cambrosio, A. Cancer on Trial: Oncology as a New Style of Practice. University of
Chicago Press; Chicago: 2011.
Kelly K, Nichter M. The Politics of Local Biology in Transnational Drug Testing: Creating
(Bio)Identities and Reproducing (Bio)Nationalismthrough Japanese “Ethnobridging” Studies. East
Asian Science, Technology and Society. 2012; 6(3):379–99.
Knorr-Cetina, K. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press;
Cambridge, MA: 1999.

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 20

Kumagai Y, Fukazawa I, Momma T, Iijima H, Takayanagi H, Takemoto N, Kikuchi Y. A Nationwide

Survey on Serious Adverse Events in Healthy Volunteer Studies in Japan. Clinical Pharmacology
Author Manuscript

and Therapeutics. 2006; 79(2):71–71.

Kupetsky-Rincon EA, Kraft WK. Healthy Volunteer Registries and Ethical Research Principles.
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2012; 91(6):965–68. [PubMed: 22609908]
Lakoff, A. Pharmaceutical Reason: Knowledge and Value in Global Psychiatry. Cambridge University
Press; New York: 2005.
Lakoff A. The Right Patients for the Drug: Managing the Placebo Effect in Antidepressant Trials.
BioSocieties. 2007; 2(1):57–71.
Largent EA, Grady C, Miller FG, Wertheimer A. Money, Coercion, and Undue Inducement: Attitudes
about Payments to Research Participants. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 2012; 34(1):1–8.
[PubMed: 22338401]
Latour, B.; Woolgar, S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University
Press; Princeton, NJ: 1979.
Lemmens T, Elliott C. Justice for the Professional Guinea Pig. American Journal of Bioethics. 2001;
1(2):51–53. [PubMed: 11951892]
Author Manuscript

Mirowski, P. Science-mart: Privatizing American Science. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA:
2011.
Monahan T, Fisher JA. Strategies for Obtaining Access to Secretive or Guarded Organizations. Journal
of Contemporary Ethnography. 2014 doi: 10.1177/0891241614549834.
Morris N, Balmer B. Volunteer Human Subjects’ Understandings of their Participation in a
Biomedical Research Experiment. Social Science & Medicine. 2006; 62(4):998–1008. [PubMed:
16085345]
Motluck A. Perils of the Professional Lab Rat. New Scientist. 2009; 27(18):40–43.
Petryna A. Clinical Trials Offshored: On Private Sector Science and Public Health. BioSocieties. 2007;
2(1):21–40.
Petryna, A. When Experiments Travel: Clinical Trials and the Global Search for Human Subjects.
Princeton University Press; Princeton, NJ: 2009.
Pollock, A. Medicating Race: Heart Disease and Durable Preoccuptions with Difference. Duke
University Press; Durham, NC: 2012.
Author Manuscript

Reverby, SM. Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and its Legacy: The Infamous
Syphilis Study and its Legacy. University of North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill: 2009.
Scheper-Hughes, N.; Bourgois, PI. Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Blackwell; Malden,
MA: 2003.
Shah, S. The Body Hunters: How the Drug Industry Tests its Products on the World’s Poorest Patients.
The New Press; New York: 2006.
Sibille M, Donazzolo Y, Lecoz F, Krupka E. After the London Tragedy, is it Still Possible to Consider
Phase I Is Safe? British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2006; 62(4):502–3. [PubMed:
16817849]
Sismondo S. Pharmaceutical Maneuvers. Social Studies of Science. 2004; 34(2):149–59.
Stein CM. Managing Risk in Healthy Subjects Participating in Clinical Research. Clinical
Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2003; 74(6):511–12. [PubMed: 14663452]
Stones M, McMillan J. Payment for Participation in Research: A Pursuit for the Poor? Journal of
Medical Ethics. 2010; 36(1):34–36. [PubMed: 20026691]
Author Manuscript

Sunder Rajan K. Experimental Values: Indian Clinical Trials and Surplus Health. New Left Review.
May-Jun;2007 45:67–88.
Tolich M. What If Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) Treated Healthy Volunteers in Clinical Trials as
Their Clients? Australasian Medical Journal. 2010; 3(12):767–71.
van Kammen J, Oudshoorn N. Gender & Risk Assessment in Contraceptive Technologies. Sociology
of Health & Illness. 2002; 24(4):436–61.
Weinstein M. A Public Culture for Guinea Pigs: U.S. Human Research Subjects after the Tuskegee
Study. Science as Culture. 2001; 10(2):195–223. [PubMed: 15971362]

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Fisher Page 21

Wood AJ, Darbyshire J. Injury to Research Volunteers: The Clinical Research Nightmare. New
England Journal of Medicine. 2006; 354(18):1869–71. [PubMed: 16672696]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table I

Demographics of Healthy Volunteers Interviewed.

Fisher

Phase I Facilities

East Midwest West

Facility Location Clinic 1 Clinic 2 Clinic 3 Clinic 4 Clinic 5 Clinic 6 Total

Total subjects 42 29 36 46 47 35 235
Sex/gender
Male, percent (n) 88.1 (37) 79.3 (23) 75.0 (27) 52.2 (24) 74.5 (35) 74.3 (26) 73.2 (172)
Female, percent (n) 11.9 (5) 20.7 (6) 25.0 (9) 47.8 (22) 25.5 (12) 25.7 (9) 26.8 (63)
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic, percent (n) 19.0 (8) 17.2 (5) 44.4 (16) 78.3 (36) 38.3 (18) 14.3 (5) 37.4 (88)
White, Hispanic, percent (n) 4.8 (2) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 44.9 (21) 74.3 (26) 20.9 (49)
Black, non-Hispanic, percent (n) 61.9 (26) 79.3 (23) 52.8 (19) 17.4 (8) 8.5 (4) 5.7 (2) 34.9 (82)
Black, Hispanic, percent (n) 0(0) 3.4(1) 0(0) 0(0) 2.1 (1) 0(0) 0.9 (2)
Asian, percent (n) 11.9 (5) 0(0) 0(0) 4.3 (2) 2.1 (1) 2.9(1) 3.8 (9)
Native American, percent (n) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 2.1 (1) 2.9(1) 0.9 (2)
Biracial, percent (n) 2.4(1) 0(0) 2.8(1) 0(0) 2.1 (1) 0(0) 1.3 (3)
First-time participants, percent (n) 11.9 (5) 17.2 (5) 72.2 (26) 32.6 (15) 38.3 (18) 8.6 (3) 30.6 (72)

Sci Technol Human Values. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.
Page 22