I've spent four study days with Sarah Wallace, Research Coordinator of the Pain Research Laboratory at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, so we’ve had a chance to get to know each other. She readily agreed to do an interview when asked.

Hobbin: "What do subjects do that you really appreciate?"

Sarah: "What I really like is when somebody goes above and beyond; when they really pay attention to what you are doing and take it seriously. Like they aren't doing just what they have to for the money but also recognize that they are participating in research and the data is important. So they'll really put a lot of thought into their responses. Then later, when we are looking at data to see what to use again or to help design the next study, we can look at that person's data and say okay, I know this data is really good, so we can base our decisions on what they say.

"I really like it when Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center employees are our subjects because they understand that it's data, so they are really careful with their responses. That's the dream subject."

Hobbin: "Don't we all strive to be the dream subject?"

Sarah: "The answer to that question is a definite no. Many subjects just do the minimum they have to get paid. The data is still good, but you can tell they are answering all of the questions for the subjective data without really putting much thought into their answers."

Hobbin: "What do subjects do that you really hate?"

Sarah: "Definitely no shows are the most irritating and because our days are so long when they show up an hour late. Also, extremely irritating subjects: you're stuck with this person all day. You try to make it a pleasant experience for them but it's really hard when you have nothing in common with them to talk about.

"There was this one guy in particular. His personality was irritating and it just didn’t get any better. He was just so weird! Well, there was just lots of stuff about him that was strange. But that's pretty rare."

Hobbin: "What is your opinion of subjects in general?"

Sarah: "I really enjoy the subjects; that's my favorite part of my job. I get to sit and talk to people that I don't usually talk to in a normal setting. For some reason we've just had a bunch of artists, it's not stuff I get to talk about in any other setting.

"There's this one musician that's really into vegetables. He has a web page that he does a vegetable of the week. He knows all these interesting facts about different vegetables.

"There was also a performance artist, which is something I completely don't get, so this person is explaining what it's all about. It was really interesting.

"I definitely enjoy the vast majority of subjects.

"So what's the deal? You get one issue of Guinea Pig Zero and suddenly you're writing for it?"

Hobbin: "There's a lot of press in GPZ and in the mainstream media about researchers that have no respect for their subjects and sometimes mistreat them. I wanted to write articles about the researchers, investigators, coordinators and nurses who do respect their subjects."

Sarah: "I'm shocked, really shocked to hear about research staff that would do that and that people would think that we might do that to our subjects, or not have any respect for them. I have the highest regard for my subjects.

"There was this one study where all the staff in the lab were taking Paxil so we re like hey, this medication does X, Y, and Z. So we know what you guys are going through. At The Hutch we've all participated in studies. That's just really kind of funny that people would think we don't care about them or respect them.

"And here you really can't mistreat any subject. It is incredibly difficult to get federal funding for these projects. Incredibly brilliant people with fantastic ideas have a difficult time getting their first grant. It s a classic Catch-22; you can't get funding because you've never had funding before. You really have to have a stellar reputation in your field in order to run your own grants.

"The other funny thing is, we have to go through this review process every year with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and our federal funding agencies. They review the safety precautions we have in place for our subjects and whether or not they are treated ethically. So not only would we never treat a subject badly, but the annual review makes sure that we don't. It's amazing to me that other research institutions wouldn't have those checks in place also. I assumed that subjects knew that we have this annual review so they would know that we would treat them ethically. I guess I've just been in the research world too long."