Prompt
You sit on a university's research ethics board. A team testing a new sleep medication asks the board to approve paying healthy volunteers $3,000 to stay in a clinic for two weeks. A student group argues that a payment this large pressures people with little money into accepting risks that they would otherwise refuse. The researchers reply that a smaller payment would underpay participants for two weeks of their time, and that the medication's risks are low. Would you approve the payment?
Practice this question
After you practice: what this question tests and how to approach it
What this question tests
- Ethical reasoning
- Critical thinking
How to approach this question
This research ethics station tests whether you can separate fair pay for a volunteer's time from a payment so large it pushes people with little money past their own judgment about risk. A strong answer names both sides: the volunteers who deserve to be paid for two weeks of their lives, and the people the student group worries about, who may say yes because they need rent. Ask aloud how the board would know the risks are low, whether the payment is reduced if someone leaves early, and how the board checks that consent is real. Weigh approving, lowering the amount, or approving with safeguards, then commit to one and say why. When the station adds a development during the study, return to what the volunteers were told at the start and whether staying is still a free choice.
More on research ethics
All 9 questions on this topicMock interviews
If you want to practice with a person, we run mock MMI and panel interviews with feedback on every answer.
