Available online at www.sciencedirect.com International Journal of Drug Policy 19 (2008) 246–247 Response Responses on a cautionary tale concerning the ethics of using respondent-driven sampling to study injection drug users Greg Scott * DePaul University, Chicago, IL, United States Received 25 March 2008; accepted 25 March 2008 First I want to thank my colleagues for responding so pas- sionately to my recently published article (Broadhead, 2008; Lansky & Mastro, 2008; Ouellet, 2008; Prachand & Benbow, 2008; Scott, 2008). The Journal Editors have presented me with the opportunity to reply. A close reading of the article should lead to the conclusion that I am not attacking respon- dent driven sampling (RDS) or people who use it, much less the people who “invented” it. As early as the abstract I clearly state my belief that RDS remains the best available means for sampling hidden populations. It does not follow, how- ever, that RDS should be sheltered from critical scrutiny. My goal has been to examine RDS’s inner workings with an eye toward improving the method’s capacity for accruing repre- sentative samples while simultaneously maximizing human subject protections. Ouellet First, sero-mixing of IDU networks occurs constantly. I report that it may have occurred in response to RDS pro- pellants. I clearly indicate that I have no sero-data proving that it did, in fact, occur as a result of RDS. Second, my article addresses some of the harms associated with this sam- pling method and some of the potential harms associated with RDS. Third, Ouellet (2008) insinuates that “Stan” probably could not have recalled having given “Patty” a coupon sev- eral weeks earlier without my having asked about it. The claim is problematic because (1) this incident occurred before Stan and Patty knew anything about my involvement in the RDS evaluation (therefore an “observer effect” could not be an accomplice), and (2) Ouellet states that street-level * Tel.: +1 773 882 0937; fax: +1 773 882 0937. E-mail address: gscott@depaul.edu. addicts “live in the now” and ostensibly do not or cannot cull from longer term memory the debts owed to them. Street ethnographers know that “street addicts” survive in part by maintaining a robust capacity for keeping a detailed mental balance sheet of debits and credits. Fourth, Ouellet claims that National HIV Behaviour Surveillance (NHBS) staff members know “Wilma” and that she “was given to considerable exaggeration.” This statement is ludicrous. Wilma is a pseudonym for a woman whose real first name (or any other identifying traits) I never recorded, as per the protocol approved by DePaul University’s Insti- tutional Review Board. Fifth, Ouellet finds it “difficult to imagine that all 20 shooting gallery operators engaged in virtually the same hustle.” The emulation of others’ hustles happens constantly on the street. Those of us who con- duct extensive street ethnography among addicts know how rapidly such enterprising schemes can spread through affil- iated and disparate social networks and across geographic areas. Broadhead Broadhead (2008) concludes that my work is “decontex- tualized” and that I am “oblivious, reckless and self-serving.” Rather than entertaining a critique concerned principally with advancing a moralistic personal condemnation, I simply want to explain that this critic – like the others – misses the point of my article. First, I am not “bashing” RDS but rather exploring the manifold ways that RDS allows participants to secure more relative control over the economic system embedded in the sampling design. Such “empowerment” is what makes RDS the best means for accessing hidden populations. But it also engenders opportunities for various forms of exploitation. 0955-3959/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2008.03.008