This really isn’t a new trend, we had another thread about it last year here: ProPublica article about pay-to-play “research”
I’ll say a few things as someone whose kid did research at a college lab in HS (not published, not thru a paid provider), as well as someone who has been a college counselor and now reads applications.
Students can gain skills and benefit from doing research in HS, whether they get that gig by contacting profs, networking with friends/neighbors/etc, or paying one of the research providers for it (Polygence, Lumiere, et al). Not all students live close to a university, so if they want to do research it would have to be remote/likely thru one of the paid providers.
When students include research as an activity, they often do not say how they sourced the opportunity…so an app reader would never know it was thru Polygence, for example. Sometimes I check the publication (which requires typing in any website address the student entered in their common app because a hotlink is not a thing in common app), sometimes I don’t.
I don’t see anything per se wrong with paying for a research opportunity. Yes, it favors the relatively affluent like most of the other components of college apps. I like to see what the student reports they got out of the experience and/or what impact the research made. Some students’ are doing meaningful research and that tends to be obvious (for example Regeneron ISEF winners).
One other benefit of the paid research providers is that it’s a way for PhD/post-docs to make some money, which many may not realize. So, pay to play is not all bad, nor is it a red flag on someone’s app. With that said, students certainly don’t need to be doing research in HS. If they have the opportunity, and it’s something they are interested in doing, go for it. If not, it’s not a weakness on their app.