Cook and Hoas found that funding played a significant role in participant selection.

One of Hoas's
and Cook's participants commented that "in his practice, the income from conducting pharmaceutical
trials sometimes [is] used to offset the losses of conducting scientifically interesting but poorly
funded federal studies,"[16] and most other participants administered trials because "reimbursements
generated from such trials made it possible to maintain a financially viable, as well as profitable,
practice."[16] Interestingly, Cook and Hoas found that most of the physicians and coordinators could
not explain directly if they actually told their patients or subjects about any financial compensation
they received. Respondents worry that discussing funding or compensation would affect enrollment,
effectively swaying participants from joining a research study. In most respondents’ experience,
most patients do not even ask for that information, so they assume that they do not have to discuss
it with them and not jeopardize enrollment. When asked if information about funding or
compensation would be important to provide to patients, one physician replied “...certainly it may
influence or bring up in their mind questions whether or not, you know, we want them to participate
because we’re gonna get paid for this, you know, budget dollar amount. But, you know, when you
talk about full disclosure, is that something that we should be doing? That’s an interesting question.” [