Huh. The lawyer example works because attorneys have a very specific, enforceable duty of confidentiality. Swap that relationship out and the conclusion may change. As written, the comment slides from "duty-based misuse of information" to "any private knowledge you shouldn’t have," which is not the same thing.
A lawyer (not my lawyer) gave me his off-the-cuff opinion on this scenario:
A pharmacologically-literate clinical trial participant for a novel new drug strongly suspects he did not receive the placebo/comparator drug, based on the subjective effects, plus their own pharmacology knowledge, experience with the placebo, and the research on the candidate drug.
However, this drug was not therapeutic for him, the side effects were onerous, or perhaps he believes the trial will be halted. Whatever their reasoning behind his inference, no details of others’ experiences were leaked to him, blinding was maintained; protocol was followed. He didn’t base this on a lab readout.
Based on his understanding of published research on the candidate drug, and projecting from his lived experience as lab rat, he believes this trial should disappoint shareholders. At the very least, shares may be priced too high.
Can the participant, based on this inference, invest $$$ shorting the pharma firm? This drug is considered the firm’s last best hope.
Their answer was yes, basically. He can trade on this non-public info.
