Literature DB >> 27200470

International Data Sharing in Practice: New Technologies Meet Old Governance.

Madeleine J Murtagh1, Andrew Turner1, Joel T Minion1, Michaela Fay1, Paul R Burton1.   

Abstract

The social structures that govern data/sample release aim to safeguard the confidentiality and privacy of cohort research participants (without whom there would be no data or samples) and enable the realization of societal benefit through optimizing the scientific use of those cohorts. Within collaborations involving multiple cohorts and biobanks, however, the local, national, and supranational institutional and legal guidelines for research (which produce a multiplicity of data access governance structures and guidelines) risk impeding the very science that is the raison d'etre of these consortia. We present an ethnographic study, which examined the epistemic and nonepistemic values driving decisions about data access and their consequences in the context of the pilot of an integrated approach to co-analysis of data. We demonstrate how the potential analytic flexibility offered by this approach was lost under contemporary data access governance. We identify three dominant values: protecting the research participant, protecting the study, and protecting the researcher. These values were both supported by and juxtaposed against a "public good" argument, and each was used as a rationale to both promote and inhibit sharing of data. While protection of the research participants was central to access permissions, decisions were also attentive to the desire of researchers to see their efforts in building population biobanks and cohorts realized in the form of scientific outputs. We conclude that systems for governing and enabling data access in large consortia need to (1) protect disclosure of research participant information or identity, (2) ensure the specific expectations of research participants are met, (3) embody systems of review that are transparent and not compromised by the specific interests of one particular group of stakeholders, and (4) facilitate data access procedures that are timely and efficient. Practical solutions are urgently needed. New approaches to data access governance should be trialed (and formally evaluated) with input from and discussion with stakeholders.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27200470     DOI: 10.1089/bio.2016.0002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank        ISSN: 1947-5543            Impact factor:   2.300


  8 in total

Review 1.  Balancing the local and the universal in maintaining ethical access to a genomics biobank.

Authors:  Catherine Heeney; Shona M Kerr
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.652

2.  The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research.

Authors:  Madeleine J Murtagh; Joel T Minion; Andrew Turner; Rebecca C Wilson; Mwenza Blell; Cynthia Ochieng; Barnaby Murtagh; Stephanie Roberts; Oliver W Butters; Paul R Burton
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 2.652

3.  Our data, our society, our health: A vision for inclusive and transparent health data science in the United Kingdom and beyond.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ford; Andy Boyd; Juliana K F Bowles; Alys Havard; Robert W Aldridge; Vasa Curcin; Michelle Greiver; Katie Harron; Vittal Katikireddi; Sarah E Rodgers; Matthew Sperrin
Journal:  Learn Health Syst       Date:  2019-03-25

4.  Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study.

Authors:  Thijs Devriendt; Pascal Borry; Mahsa Shabani
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Factors that influence data sharing through data sharing platforms: A qualitative study on the views and experiences of cohort holders and platform developers.

Authors:  Thijs Devriendt; Pascal Borry; Mahsa Shabani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.

Authors:  Jane Kaye; Sharon F Terry; Eric Juengst; Sarah Coy; Jennifer R Harris; Don Chalmers; Edward S Dove; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Clement Adebamowo; Emilomo Ogbe; Louise Bezuidenhout; Michael Morrison; Joel T Minion; Madeleine J Murtagh; Jusaku Minari; Harriet Teare; Rosario Isasi; Kazuto Kato; Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag; Patricia Marshall; Barbara Koenig; Anne Cambon-Thomsen
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 4.639

7.  Software Application Profile: Opal and Mica: open-source software solutions for epidemiological data management, harmonization and dissemination.

Authors:  Dany Doiron; Yannick Marcon; Isabel Fortier; Paul Burton; Vincent Ferretti
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 7.196

8.  Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure.

Authors:  Madeleine J Murtagh; Mwenza T Blell; Olly W Butters; Lorraine Cowley; Edward S Dove; Alissa Goodman; Rebecca L Griggs; Alison Hall; Nina Hallowell; Meena Kumari; Massimo Mangino; Barbara Maughan; Melinda C Mills; Joel T Minion; Tom Murphy; Gillian Prior; Matthew Suderman; Susan M Ring; Nina T Rogers; Stephanie J Roberts; Catherine Van der Straeten; Will Viney; Deborah Wiltshire; Andrew Wong; Neil Walker; Paul R Burton
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 4.639

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.