Is Being “Paid to Endure” Compatible With Autonomy? Paid Research Participation and Five (Rather Than Four) Goods of Work

In his article, Erik Malmqvist (2019) discusses whether it
is a good idea to regulate participation in phase 1 clinical
trials as work, thus turning the practice of making a living by being a research subject into a job. Specifically,
Malmqvist investigates whether this would qualify as
meaningful work, based on what Gheaus and Herzog
call the four “goods of work”: excellence, social contribution, community, and social recognition. In related
research that synthesizes both philosophical and empirical literature on meaningful work, we have recently
identified five aspects of meaningful work, the first four
of which broadly overlap with Gheaus and Herzog’s
goods of work (Smids et al. under review). The missing
element in Gheaus and Herzog’s picture—and therefore
also in Malmqvist’s main argument—is autonomy. In the
following, we first argue that autonomy should be
included among the goods of work. We then augment
Malmqvist’s argument by exploring how including
autonomy among the goods of work affects whether
being a paid research subject can qualify as meaningful work