Suppr超能文献

权衡永生数据的利弊:个人基因组计划中参与者对开放式同意的看法。

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

作者信息

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

出版信息

Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Jan-Feb;46(1):36-45. doi: 10.1002/hast.523. Epub 2015 Dec 17.

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.

摘要

个人的健康、基因或环境暴露数据存储在在线数据库中,便创建了一种宝贵的共享资源,可加速生物医学研究,甚至为公众进行众包发现创造机会。但这些数据“不朽”的方式可能既带来持久的风险,也带来益处。一旦在互联网上共享,数据就很难甚至无法编辑,而且身份可能会通过一种称为数据关联的过程被泄露,即在线数据集相互匹配。重新识别(re-ID),即将个人姓名与被认为已去识别的数据相关联的过程,会带来诸如保险或就业歧视、社会污名以及违背知情同意文件中经常做出的承诺等风险。与此同时,重新识别对研究人员乃至科学的未来都构成风险,因为重新识别最终可能会破坏潜在研究参与者的信任和参与度。随着所谓的大数据成为越来越重要的研究工具和新研究结构的驱动力,在线数据共享的伦理挑战也日益凸显。大数据正在使研究范围扩大,纳入大量研究人员和机构以及提供各种类型数据的大量参与者,因此参与者的同意关系不再是与某个人甚至某个研究机构。此外,同意的性质也进一步发生了变化,因为大数据分析通常始于描述性探究和假设生成,研究问题在一开始无法明确界定,而且从长远来看可能不可预见。在本文中,我们将探讨数据共享范围的扩大如何带来新的挑战,以基因组学以及向新的同意模式的转变为例进行说明。我们借鉴了一个开放数据平台——个人基因组计划——参与者的经验,以使研究参与者能够发表意见,为大数据研究的伦理同意实践和方案审查提供参考。

相似文献

1
Balancing Benefits and Risks of Immortal Data: Participants' Views of Open Consent in the Personal Genome Project.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Jan-Feb;46(1):36-45. doi: 10.1002/hast.523. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
3
Open Questions.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Jan-Feb;46(1):2. doi: 10.1002/hast.525.
4
6
Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants' perspectives.
Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(2):106-14. doi: 10.1159/000334718. Epub 2011 Dec 30.
7
Genomic research and data-mining technology: implications for personal privacy and informed consent.
Ethics Inf Technol. 2004;6(1):15-28. doi: 10.1023/b:etin.0000036156.77169.31.
8
The Promise and Perils of Open Medical Data.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Jan-Feb;46(1):6-7. doi: 10.1002/hast.529.
9
Genomic anonymity: have we already lost it?
Am J Bioeth. 2008 Oct;8(10):71-4. doi: 10.1080/15265160802478560.
10
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Stakeholders' perceptions of personal health data sharing: A scoping review.
PLOS Digit Health. 2024 Nov 20;3(11):e0000652. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000652. eCollection 2024 Nov.
2
Lifetime residential history collection and processing for environmental data linkages in the ABCD study.
Health Place. 2024 May;87:103238. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103238. Epub 2024 Apr 26.
3
A systematic literature review of the 'commercialisation effect' on public attitudes towards biobank and genomic data repositories.
Public Underst Sci. 2024 Jul;33(5):548-567. doi: 10.1177/09636625241230864. Epub 2024 Feb 22.
4
Publics' knowledge of, attitude to and motivation towards health-related genomics: a scoping review.
Eur J Hum Genet. 2024 Jul;32(7):747-758. doi: 10.1038/s41431-024-01547-5. Epub 2024 Feb 6.
5
Toward an open access genomics database of South Africans: ethical considerations.
Front Genet. 2023 May 16;14:1166029. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1166029. eCollection 2023.
8
Core values of genomic citizen science: results from a qualitative interview study.
Biosocieties. 2022 Jun;17(2):203-228. doi: 10.1057/s41292-020-00208-2. Epub 2020 Sep 28.
9
10
Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices.
Wellcome Open Res. 2021 Aug 23;6:214. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17000.1. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
Communicating results in post-Belmont era biomonitoring studies: lessons from genetics and neuroimaging research.
Environ Res. 2015 Jan;136:363-72. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.10.001. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
2
Data use under the NIH GWAS data sharing policy and future directions.
Nat Genet. 2014 Sep;46(9):934-8. doi: 10.1038/ng.3062.
3
openPDS: protecting the privacy of metadata through SafeAnswers.
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 9;9(7):e98790. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098790. eCollection 2014.
4
Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks.
Eur J Hum Genet. 2015 Feb;23(2):141-6. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.71. Epub 2014 May 7.
5
Harvard Personal Genome Project: lessons from participatory public research.
Genome Med. 2014 Feb 28;6(2):10. doi: 10.1186/gm527.
6
Identifying personal genomes by surname inference.
Science. 2013 Jan 18;339(6117):321-4. doi: 10.1126/science.1229566.
7
Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: is passive participation an ethical problem?
Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Sep;21(9):897-902. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.282. Epub 2013 Jan 9.
8
Reflexive Research Ethics for Environmental Health and Justice: Academics and Movement-Building.
Soc Mov Stud. 2012;11(2):161-176. doi: 10.1080/14742837.2012.664898. Epub 2012 Apr 2.
9
Measuring the success of community science: the northern California Household Exposure Study.
Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Mar;120(3):326-31. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1103734. Epub 2011 Dec 6.
10
"If I could in a small way help": motivations for and beliefs about sample donation for genetic research.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011 Jun;6(2):57-70. doi: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.2.57.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验