健康数据研究的基于信任的治理。

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-12 DOI:10.1007/s11019-022-10134-8
Marieke A R Bak, M Corrette Ploem, Hanno L Tan, M T Blom, Dick L Willems
{"title":"健康数据研究的基于信任的治理。","authors":"Marieke A R Bak,&nbsp;M Corrette Ploem,&nbsp;Hanno L Tan,&nbsp;M T Blom,&nbsp;Dick L Willems","doi":"10.1007/s11019-022-10134-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Developments in medical big data analytics may bring societal benefits but are also challenging privacy and other ethical values. At the same time, an overly restrictive data protection regime can form a serious threat to valuable observational studies. Discussions about whether data privacy or data solidarity should be the foundational value of research policies, have remained unresolved. We add to this debate with an empirically informed ethical analysis. First, experiences with the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) within a European research consortium demonstrate a gap between the aims of the regulation and its effects in practice. Namely, strictly formalised data protection requirements may cause routinisation among researchers instead of substantive ethical reflection, and may crowd out trust between actors in the health data research ecosystem; while harmonisation across Europe and data sharing between countries is hampered by different interpretations of the law, which partly stem from different views about ethical values. Then, building on these observations, we use theory to argue that the concept of trust provides an escape from the privacy-solidarity debate. Lastly, the paper details three aspects of trust that can help to create a responsible research environment and to mitigate the encountered challenges: trust as multi-agent concept; trust as a rational and democratic value; and trust as method for priority setting. Mutual cooperation in research-among researchers and with data subjects-is grounded in trust, which should be more explicitly recognised in the governance of health data research.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":"26 2","pages":"185-200"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835739/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards trust-based governance of health data research.\",\"authors\":\"Marieke A R Bak,&nbsp;M Corrette Ploem,&nbsp;Hanno L Tan,&nbsp;M T Blom,&nbsp;Dick L Willems\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11019-022-10134-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Developments in medical big data analytics may bring societal benefits but are also challenging privacy and other ethical values. At the same time, an overly restrictive data protection regime can form a serious threat to valuable observational studies. Discussions about whether data privacy or data solidarity should be the foundational value of research policies, have remained unresolved. We add to this debate with an empirically informed ethical analysis. First, experiences with the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) within a European research consortium demonstrate a gap between the aims of the regulation and its effects in practice. Namely, strictly formalised data protection requirements may cause routinisation among researchers instead of substantive ethical reflection, and may crowd out trust between actors in the health data research ecosystem; while harmonisation across Europe and data sharing between countries is hampered by different interpretations of the law, which partly stem from different views about ethical values. Then, building on these observations, we use theory to argue that the concept of trust provides an escape from the privacy-solidarity debate. Lastly, the paper details three aspects of trust that can help to create a responsible research environment and to mitigate the encountered challenges: trust as multi-agent concept; trust as a rational and democratic value; and trust as method for priority setting. Mutual cooperation in research-among researchers and with data subjects-is grounded in trust, which should be more explicitly recognised in the governance of health data research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"26 2\",\"pages\":\"185-200\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835739/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-022-10134-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-022-10134-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

医疗大数据分析的发展可能会带来社会效益,但也会挑战隐私和其他道德价值观。与此同时,过于严格的数据保护制度可能会对有价值的观察性研究构成严重威胁。关于数据隐私还是数据团结应该是研究政策的基本价值的讨论仍未解决。我们在这场辩论中加入了一个基于经验的伦理分析。首先,欧洲研究联盟实施《通用数据保护条例》的经验表明,该条例的目标与其在实践中的效果之间存在差距。也就是说,严格形式化的数据保护要求可能会导致研究人员的常规化,而不是实质性的道德反思,并可能排挤健康数据研究生态系统中参与者之间的信任;而对该法律的不同解释阻碍了整个欧洲的协调和各国之间的数据共享,这在一定程度上源于对道德价值观的不同看法。然后,在这些观察结果的基础上,我们使用理论来论证信任的概念提供了一种逃离隐私团结辩论的途径。最后,本文详细介绍了信任的三个方面,这些方面有助于创造一个负责任的研究环境并缓解所遇到的挑战:信任是多主体的概念;信任是一种理性和民主的价值观;以及信任作为优先级设置的方法。研究人员之间以及与数据主体在研究中的相互合作建立在信任的基础上,这一点在健康数据研究的治理中应该得到更明确的承认。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards trust-based governance of health data research.

Developments in medical big data analytics may bring societal benefits but are also challenging privacy and other ethical values. At the same time, an overly restrictive data protection regime can form a serious threat to valuable observational studies. Discussions about whether data privacy or data solidarity should be the foundational value of research policies, have remained unresolved. We add to this debate with an empirically informed ethical analysis. First, experiences with the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) within a European research consortium demonstrate a gap between the aims of the regulation and its effects in practice. Namely, strictly formalised data protection requirements may cause routinisation among researchers instead of substantive ethical reflection, and may crowd out trust between actors in the health data research ecosystem; while harmonisation across Europe and data sharing between countries is hampered by different interpretations of the law, which partly stem from different views about ethical values. Then, building on these observations, we use theory to argue that the concept of trust provides an escape from the privacy-solidarity debate. Lastly, the paper details three aspects of trust that can help to create a responsible research environment and to mitigate the encountered challenges: trust as multi-agent concept; trust as a rational and democratic value; and trust as method for priority setting. Mutual cooperation in research-among researchers and with data subjects-is grounded in trust, which should be more explicitly recognised in the governance of health data research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
期刊最新文献
To cure or not to cure. Non-empirical methods for ethics research on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health: a systematic journal review. One R or the other - an experimental bioethics approach to 3R dilemmas in animal research. What is a cure through gene therapy? An analysis and evaluation of the use of "cure". Genetic enhancement from the perspective of transhumanism: exploring a new paradigm of transhuman evolution.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1