Literature DB >> 26678513

Balancing Benefits and Risks of Immortal Data: Participants' Views of Open Consent in the Personal Genome Project.

Oscar A Zarate, Julia Green Brody, Phil Brown, Mónica D Ramirez-Andreotta, Laura Perovich, Jacob Matz.   

Abstract

An individual's health, genetic, or environmental-exposure data, placed in an online repository, creates a valuable shared resource that can accelerate biomedical research and even open opportunities for crowd-sourcing discoveries by members of the public. But these data become "immortalized" in ways that may create lasting risk as well as benefit. Once shared on the Internet, the data are difficult or impossible to redact, and identities may be revealed by a process called data linkage, in which online data sets are matched to each other. Reidentification (re-ID), the process of associating an individual's name with data that were considered deidentified, poses risks such as insurance or employment discrimination, social stigma, and breach of the promises often made in informed-consent documents. At the same time, re-ID poses risks to researchers and indeed to the future of science, should re-ID end up undermining the trust and participation of potential research participants. The ethical challenges of online data sharing are heightened as so-called big data becomes an increasingly important research tool and driver of new research structures. Big data is shifting research to include large numbers of researchers and institutions as well as large numbers of participants providing diverse types of data, so the participants' consent relationship is no longer with a person or even a research institution. In addition, consent is further transformed because big data analysis often begins with descriptive inquiry and generation of a hypothesis, and the research questions cannot be clearly defined at the outset and may be unforeseeable over the long term. In this article, we consider how expanded data sharing poses new challenges, illustrated by genomics and the transition to new models of consent. We draw on the experiences of participants in an open data platform-the Personal Genome Project-to allow study participants to contribute their voices to inform ethical consent practices and protocol reviews for big-data research.
© 2015 The Hastings Center.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26678513      PMCID: PMC4871108          DOI: 10.1002/hast.523

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep        ISSN: 0093-0334            Impact factor:   2.683


  16 in total

1.  Wanted: human biospecimens.

Authors:  Karen J Maschke
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.683

2.  Health-information altruists--a potentially critical resource.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Russ B Altman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  From genetic privacy to open consent.

Authors:  Jeantine E Lunshof; Ruth Chadwick; Daniel B Vorhaus; George M Church
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Identifying personal genomes by surname inference.

Authors:  Melissa Gymrek; Amy L McGuire; David Golan; Eran Halperin; Yaniv Erlich
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Managing patient expectations about deidentification.

Authors:  Shawneequa L Callier; Harald Schmidt
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 11.229

6.  "If I could in a small way help": motivations for and beliefs about sample donation for genetic research.

Authors:  Marsha Michie; Gail Henderson; Joanne Garrett; Giselle Corbie-Smith
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 7.  Communicating results in post-Belmont era biomonitoring studies: lessons from genetics and neuroimaging research.

Authors:  Rachel Morello-Frosch; Julia Varshavsky; Max Liboiron; Phil Brown; Julia G Brody
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 6.498

8.  Reflexive Research Ethics for Environmental Health and Justice: Academics and Movement-Building.

Authors:  Alissa Cordner; David Ciplet; Phil Brown; Rachel Morello-Frosch
Journal:  Soc Mov Stud       Date:  2012-04-02

9.  Harvard Personal Genome Project: lessons from participatory public research.

Authors:  Madeleine P Ball; Jason R Bobe; Michael F Chou; Tom Clegg; Preston W Estep; Jeantine E Lunshof; Ward Vandewege; Alexander Zaranek; George M Church
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 11.117

10.  openPDS: protecting the privacy of metadata through SafeAnswers.

Authors:  Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye; Erez Shmueli; Samuel S Wang; Alex Sandy Pentland
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  14 in total

1.  The Bermuda Triangle: The Pragmatics, Policies, and Principles for Data Sharing in the History of the Human Genome Project.

Authors:  Kathryn Maxson Jones; Rachel A Ankeny; Robert Cook-Deegan
Journal:  J Hist Biol       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.326

2.  Ethics and Epistemology in Big Data Research.

Authors:  Wendy Lipworth; Paul H Mason; Ian Kerridge; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 1.352

Review 3.  Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Jennefer N Kohler; Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Participation in Genetic Research: Amazon's Mechanical Turk Workforce in the United States and India.

Authors:  Susan W Groth; Ann Dozier; Margaret Demment; Dongmei Li; I Diana Fernandez; Jack Chang; Timothy Dye
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  Core values of genomic citizen science: results from a qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Christi J Guerrini; Meredith Trejo; Isabel Canfield; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Biosocieties       Date:  2020-09-28

6.  "A cohort of pirate ships": biomedical citizen scientists' attitudes toward ethical oversight.

Authors:  Meredith Trejo; Isabel Canfield; Whitney Bash Brooks; Alex Pearlman; Christi J Guerrini
Journal:  Citiz Sci       Date:  2021-05-20

7.  Potentials and Challenges of the Health Data Cooperative Model.

Authors:  Ilse van Roessel; Matthias Reumann; Angela Brand
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Assessment of knowledge about biobanking among healthcare students and their willingness to donate biospecimens.

Authors:  Leena Merdad; Lama Aldakhil; Rawan Gadi; Mourad Assidi; Salina Y Saddick; Adel Abuzenadah; Jim Vaught; Abdelbaset Buhmeida; Mohammed H Al-Qahtani
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  Authentication of Patients and Participants in Health Information Exchange and Consent for Medical Research: A Key Step for Privacy Protection, Respect for Autonomy, and Trustworthiness.

Authors:  Atsushi Kogetsu; Soichi Ogishima; Kazuto Kato
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.599

Review 10.  Ethical Considerations of Using Machine Learning for Decision Support in Occupational Health: An Example Involving Periodic Workers' Health Assessments.

Authors:  Marianne W M C Six Dijkstra; Egbert Siebrand; Steven Dorrestijn; Etto L Salomons; Michiel F Reneman; Frits G J Oosterveld; Remko Soer; Douglas P Gross; Hendrik J Bieleman
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2020-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.