IN

Patients participate in clinical trials for many reasons, including the desire to con-tribute to medical knowledge and bene t humanity (1–3). In surveys that seek to de-termine why patients volunteer as research subjects, responses such as “to help develop new medicines, ” “to help society, ” and “to help the sick ” are given more frequently than “to help my own health ” (4, 5). Even healthy volunteers who participate in clini-cal trials that o er them no potential ben-e t cite the “desire to help others ” as being nearly as important a motivating factor as nancial considerations (6). Pharmaceutical company sponsors of clinical trials channel this altruism to encourage participation and compliance with clinical trials. is raises the question: Do industry sponsors have a responsibility to research subjects to ensure that medical science and society gain from the risk and discomfort that clinical trial participants endure, o en for no personal gain? If sponsors diminish the opportunity for society to bene t from the altruism of re-search subjects, does this subvert an implicit moral contract between sponsors and study participants? (Fig. 1). e current ethical framework that jus-ti es medical experimentation with human subjects is grounded in the concept that ex-posure of subjects to the risk and burden of research is acceptable only if society will gain knowledge—a condition that re-quires the sharing of results, whether they are positive or negative (7, 8). is cen-tral concept represents a moral obligation that supersedes business considerations. Indeed, the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki states that “authors have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. … Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results should be published or otherwise made publicly available.