Beginning in 1984, Frank Plummer established a relationship with commercial sex workers in an urban slum of Nairobi Kenya, called Pumwani.1 The observational cohort study followed 3,000 commercial sex workers in an open cohort to follow their Sero-conversion to HIV through consistent exposures.1 Even though women in the study were exposed to HIV four or more times a day, a small group of women never sero-converted to HIV. At one point in the study, approximately 110 women remained uninfected with HIV despite up to 500 exposures.2 The study has gained global attention, with millions in funding, and landmark discoveries in the HIV/AIDS field.
Plummer’s team discovered that HIV can be transmitted through breast milk and established a link between co-infections and increased risk of HIV contraction.2 The study has been on-going for over thirty years, and approximately sixty women remain uninfected with HIV.1 Hawa, a member of the study since it’s conception, is one of these special women, known as HIV Exposed Sero-Negative (HESN). Despite all of these accomplishments, Hawa and most of the other women remain commercial sex workers. They earn less than $2 a day and see five to fifteen customers a day.1 She and her five children still live in a one room, mud hut in the village slum of Majengo.1 This case outlines the ethical question, “what relief or benefits are owed to research participants?” While Hawa’s situation is devastating, what responsibility does Plummer and his team have to her and the other women in the cohort? Researchers must balance undue inducement with relief of oppression, all while attempting to maintain research ethics.
Find the rest of the article here: What do Researchers Owe the Researched?
